Louisiana must reveal details of death-penalty practices, federal magistrate rules

Louisiana Death Chamber

Louisiana must reveal details of how it plans to kill two death row inmates, a federal judge ruled Tuesday in Baton Rouge. The ruling was a rebuff to the state Department of Safety and Corrections, which was trying to keep its lethal injection protocol under seal.

In Tuesday’s ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Riedlinger rejected the state’s argument that revealing the lethal injection protocol would raise “serious security concerns.”

“Defendants’ motion is not supported by any affidavit or other evidence providing even one example of improper interference with an execution caused by or related to the dissemination of the current or any previous Louisiana execution protocol, or which shows that the defendants’ security concerns and the asserted risk of manipulation are more than mere speculation or conjecture,” Riedlinger’s ruling stated.

The judge ordered the state to turn over the protocol to defense attorneys within 14 days. Previous court documents had given the state until July 2014 to turn over those materials.

Louisiana isn’t the first state to try to keep the lethal injection process secret. In May, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado sued the state over the lack of transparency in its death-penalty policy.

Texas and Mississippi, by contrast, have disclosed the type and amount of the drug or drugs they use to induce the death of condemned prisoners.

Riedlinger’s ruling was on a motion in connection with a federal lawsuit filed in December, in which death row inmate Jessie Hoffman sued Governor Bobby Jindal and various members of the Louisiana Department of Safety and Corrections. Hoffman is sentenced to die for the 1996 kidnapping, rape and murder of advertising executive Mary “Molly” Elliot.

In February, death row inmate and convicted child killer Christopher Sepulvado joined Hoffman’s suit. Sepulvado was convicted of torturing and murdering his six-year-old stepson in 1992.

Both plaintiffs assert that the principle of due process requires that they be fully informed how the state intends to execute them.

Click here to read the full article

Source: The Lens, June 5, 2013