Appellate Court Suspends All Executions; Remands Lethal Injection Regulations Back to NJ DOC
Posted: February 20, 2004
NEW JERSEYANS FOR A DEATH PENALTY MORATORIUM (NJDPM)
22 Oliver St. * Chatham, NJ 07928 * 973-635-6396 * 609-393-0638 * 856-854-3182
ATTENTION: NEWS DESK
CONTACT
Lois Seeligsohn 856-854-3182 (days and evenings)
Celeste Fitzgerald 973-635-6396 (days and evenings)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APPELLATE COURT SUSPENDS ALL EXECUTIONS;
REMANDS LETHAL INJECTION REGULATIONS BACK TO NJ DOC
TRENTON : Citing concern that New Jersey's regulations for lethal injection "appear to be arbitrary and unreasonable," the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division halted all executions in New Jersey. The decision, issued today (February 20), and written by Judge Sylvia Pressler, the most senior judge on the Appellate Division, requires the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC) to further deliberate over the regulations and to provide background support for their adoption before a death sentence can be carried out. The Court's unanimous decision was issued in response to a challenge filed by New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty Moratorium (NJDPM).
In arguments heard February 3, 2004, NJDPM attorney Kevin D. Walsh, of Pennsauken, asked the court to throw out state regulations for capital punishment by lethal injection. Walsh contended that the NJDOC is unqualified to carry out required procedures because it has no medical expertise and has insufficient record to support its killing protocol. He further argued that the state's regulations violate free speech guarantees under federal and state constitutions.
Commenting on today's decision, Walsh said, "The NJDOC did not demonstrate that it has the expertise to impose death in a manner acceptable to society."
Noting the complexity of state sanctioned homicide, Walsh added, "Today's decision puts a heavy burden on the NJDOC to support its lethal injection regulations. There is no neat and simple way to kill a human being."
NJDPM Chair, Sandra Manning, Esq., of Trenton applauded the Court's decision to halt executions. "This decision acknowledges that the state cannot proceed with an execution when it is unclear whether it can be carried out without violating constitutional mandates."
The Court also addressed NJDPM's argument that the NJDOC regulations hides from the public what really happens in the state's death chamber. The suit urged the Court to throw out NJDOC regulations that bar an inmate from speaking with the media 72 hours before his execution, and to hold that NJDOC must provide media and public witnesses with full access to the entire execution process, from removing the inmate from his cell to the insertion of the poisonous chemicals in his arm, and any complications along the way. Other courts nationwide have ordered such access.
The Court's remand will require the NJDOC to obtain medical expertise to support its regulations. The Court held that because of "the patent gravity of the life and death issues implicated by the regulations, we have concluded that rather than simply striking down those regulations, DOC should have the opportunity to give them further consideration, by additional hearings if necessary, and to articulate, if it is able to do so, a supporting basis for those determinations. In the meantime, however, we are satisfied that the regulations as a whole, as they now stand, may not be implemented by the carrying out of a death sentence."
The Court also expressed doubt about the NJDOC's regulations that prohibit an inmate awaiting execution from contacting the media and that prohibit witnesses from viewing all parts of an execution. The Court ordered the NJDOC to justify its decisions on those issues, writing that "It is one thing for proponents and opponents to talk about capital punishment as an abstract proposition. It is quite another to see it carried out. Contemporary and evolving community standards of decency and morality are not reliably developed in a vacuum and under sanitized conditions, but rather should be based on an appreciation by the community of just what is involved, in human terms and in terms of decency and morality, in the State's putting a person to death."
Citing the federal and state constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, Manning stated "Society is to decide what is cruel and unusual. But how can New Jerseyans make that determination if all we get to see is the NJDOC's sanitized version. Implementation of the death penalty should not be shrouded in secrecy"
NJDPM Executive Director, Celeste Fitzgerald, called today's decision "one more reason to step back from the capital punishment process." Fitzgerald, whose organization has long sought a suspension of executions pending a thorough investigation of all aspects of New Jersey's capital punishment process, said the decision raises just some of the many unanswered questions regarding the state's death penalty. "New Jersey's death penalty law has many flaws. Year after year, statistical analysis shows that New Jersey's death penalty is imposed in an arbitrary and biased manner. But, we have never addressed those or any other problems."
Citing a May 2002 Rutgers Eagleton poll showing that New Jerseyans prefer alternatives to the death penalty, Fitzgerald added, "Its time to seriously consider whether the death penalty should be replaced with an alternative, such as life without parole."
Experts had estimated New Jersey's first execution in 41 years was likely to occur before next October, with the killing of death row inmate John
Martini. He and 12 other men currently await death at Trenton State Prison. Four have exhausted state level appeals.
The decision is available at
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a0899-01.pdf
22 Oliver St. * Chatham, NJ 07928 * 973-635-6396 * 609-393-0638 * 856-854-3182
ATTENTION: NEWS DESK
CONTACT
Lois Seeligsohn 856-854-3182 (days and evenings)
Celeste Fitzgerald 973-635-6396 (days and evenings)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APPELLATE COURT SUSPENDS ALL EXECUTIONS;
REMANDS LETHAL INJECTION REGULATIONS BACK TO NJ DOC
TRENTON : Citing concern that New Jersey's regulations for lethal injection "appear to be arbitrary and unreasonable," the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division halted all executions in New Jersey. The decision, issued today (February 20), and written by Judge Sylvia Pressler, the most senior judge on the Appellate Division, requires the New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJDOC) to further deliberate over the regulations and to provide background support for their adoption before a death sentence can be carried out. The Court's unanimous decision was issued in response to a challenge filed by New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty Moratorium (NJDPM).
In arguments heard February 3, 2004, NJDPM attorney Kevin D. Walsh, of Pennsauken, asked the court to throw out state regulations for capital punishment by lethal injection. Walsh contended that the NJDOC is unqualified to carry out required procedures because it has no medical expertise and has insufficient record to support its killing protocol. He further argued that the state's regulations violate free speech guarantees under federal and state constitutions.
Commenting on today's decision, Walsh said, "The NJDOC did not demonstrate that it has the expertise to impose death in a manner acceptable to society."
Noting the complexity of state sanctioned homicide, Walsh added, "Today's decision puts a heavy burden on the NJDOC to support its lethal injection regulations. There is no neat and simple way to kill a human being."
NJDPM Chair, Sandra Manning, Esq., of Trenton applauded the Court's decision to halt executions. "This decision acknowledges that the state cannot proceed with an execution when it is unclear whether it can be carried out without violating constitutional mandates."
The Court also addressed NJDPM's argument that the NJDOC regulations hides from the public what really happens in the state's death chamber. The suit urged the Court to throw out NJDOC regulations that bar an inmate from speaking with the media 72 hours before his execution, and to hold that NJDOC must provide media and public witnesses with full access to the entire execution process, from removing the inmate from his cell to the insertion of the poisonous chemicals in his arm, and any complications along the way. Other courts nationwide have ordered such access.
The Court's remand will require the NJDOC to obtain medical expertise to support its regulations. The Court held that because of "the patent gravity of the life and death issues implicated by the regulations, we have concluded that rather than simply striking down those regulations, DOC should have the opportunity to give them further consideration, by additional hearings if necessary, and to articulate, if it is able to do so, a supporting basis for those determinations. In the meantime, however, we are satisfied that the regulations as a whole, as they now stand, may not be implemented by the carrying out of a death sentence."
The Court also expressed doubt about the NJDOC's regulations that prohibit an inmate awaiting execution from contacting the media and that prohibit witnesses from viewing all parts of an execution. The Court ordered the NJDOC to justify its decisions on those issues, writing that "It is one thing for proponents and opponents to talk about capital punishment as an abstract proposition. It is quite another to see it carried out. Contemporary and evolving community standards of decency and morality are not reliably developed in a vacuum and under sanitized conditions, but rather should be based on an appreciation by the community of just what is involved, in human terms and in terms of decency and morality, in the State's putting a person to death."
Citing the federal and state constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, Manning stated "Society is to decide what is cruel and unusual. But how can New Jerseyans make that determination if all we get to see is the NJDOC's sanitized version. Implementation of the death penalty should not be shrouded in secrecy"
NJDPM Executive Director, Celeste Fitzgerald, called today's decision "one more reason to step back from the capital punishment process." Fitzgerald, whose organization has long sought a suspension of executions pending a thorough investigation of all aspects of New Jersey's capital punishment process, said the decision raises just some of the many unanswered questions regarding the state's death penalty. "New Jersey's death penalty law has many flaws. Year after year, statistical analysis shows that New Jersey's death penalty is imposed in an arbitrary and biased manner. But, we have never addressed those or any other problems."
Citing a May 2002 Rutgers Eagleton poll showing that New Jerseyans prefer alternatives to the death penalty, Fitzgerald added, "Its time to seriously consider whether the death penalty should be replaced with an alternative, such as life without parole."
Experts had estimated New Jersey's first execution in 41 years was likely to occur before next October, with the killing of death row inmate John
Martini. He and 12 other men currently await death at Trenton State Prison. Four have exhausted state level appeals.
The decision is available at
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a0899-01.pdf