Nelson v. Campbell

Last updated

Nelson v. Campbell
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 29, 2004
Decided May 24, 2004
Full case nameDavid L. Nelson, Petitioner v. Donal Campbell, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al.
Docket no. 03-6821
Citations541 U.S. 637 ( more )
124 S. Ct. 2117; 158 L. Ed. 2d 924
Argument Oral argument
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
MajorityO'Connor, joined by unanimous
Laws applied

Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637 (2004), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court considering whether a prisoner's appeal of proposed execution procedures was equivalent to a habeas corpus petition. The court held unanimously that an appeal of proposed execution procedures is different from a habeas corpus petition because it is not an appeal of a conviction or sentence.

Contents

Background

On January 1, 1978, David Larry Nelson killed Wilson Woodrow Thompson and James Dewey Cash, a cab driver. [1] Nelson had previously pleaded guilty to beating an eighty-two-year-old man, Oliver King, to death in a Birmingham, Alabama, parking lot. [1] Nelson served three years in prison for King's death. [1]

In 1979, a jury found Nelson guilty of capital murder and he was sentenced to death. Nelson was resentenced twice, receiving the death penalty both times. Nelson filed a federal habeas petition challenging the most recent death sentence, which was denied by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. On June 3, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of Nelson's first federal habeas petition, claiming it was essentially the same a second habeas petition. [2] [3] Alabama's sole method of execution was electrocution until July 1, 2002, when they changed to lethal injection. Alabama allowed inmates to opt for electrocution within until July 1, 2002. Nelson did not file a punctual request opting for execution, resulting in a waiver of this option.

Nelson then filed a civil rights action against officials three days prior to his scheduled execution, pusuant to 42 USC § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. [2] [4] Because Nelson's veins were compromised from long-term drug use, Alabama planned to use a "cut-down" procedure to access Nelson's veins, which required making a two-inch incision into his arm or leg to bypass veins that had collapsed. [5] [2] Nelson claimed that the use of this procedure would violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because potential complications from the procedure included hemorrhage, death by asphyxia, and cardiovascular collapse. [1] Both the District Court and the Eleventh Circuit refused to allow Nelson's claim to be heard. [1] Nelson sought a permanent injunction against use of the cut-down procedure as well as a temporary stay of execution a stay of execution so that the District Court could consider the merits of his claim. On October 9, 2003, less than three hours before he was scheduled to be executed, the Supreme Court granted Nelson a temporary stay of execution. [1] [3]

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court unanimously held that an appeal of proposed execution procedures is different from a habeas corpus petition because it is not an appeal of a conviction or sentence, so a prisoner challenging the procedures for his execution can base his Eighth Amendment claim on Section 1983. [6] [7] [8] Furthermore, the opinion claimed that Alabama had conceded a prisoner who needed medical treatment that required access to a vein could challenge the procedure as inadequate medical care. The Court stated that the cut-down procedure was "dangerous and antiquated," arguing that they saw "no reason on the face of the complaint to treat petitioner's claim differently solely because he has been condemned to die." [5] [2]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lethal injection</span> Form of execution involving injection of chemicals into the bloodstream

Lethal injection is the practice of injecting one or more drugs into a person for the express purpose of causing rapid death. The main application for this procedure is capital punishment, but the term may also be applied in a broader sense to include euthanasia and other forms of suicide. The drugs cause the person to become unconscious, stops their breathing, and causes a heart arrhythmia, in that order.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electric chair</span> Execution method

The electric chair is a specialized device employed for carrying out capital punishment through the process of electrocution. During its use, the individual sentenced to death is securely strapped to a specially designed wooden chair and electrocuted via strategically positioned electrodes affixed to the head and leg. This method of execution was conceptualized by Alfred P. Southwick, a dentist based in Buffalo, New York, in 1881. Over the following decade, this execution technique was developed further, aiming to provide a more humane alternative to the conventional forms of execution, particularly hanging. The electric chair was first utilized in 1890 and subsequently became known as a symbol of this method of execution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in the United States</span> Legal penalty in the United States

In the United States, capital punishment is a legal penalty throughout the country at the federal level, in 27 states, and in American Samoa. It is also a legal penalty for some military offenses. Capital punishment has been abolished in 23 states and in the federal capital, Washington, D.C. It is usually applied for only the most serious crimes, such as aggravated murder. Although it is a legal penalty in 27 states, 20 states currently have the ability to execute death sentences, with the other seven, as well as the federal government, being subject to different types of moratoriums.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Old Sparky</span> Nickname for electric chairs

Old Sparky is the nickname of the electric chairs in Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Old Smokey was the nickname of the electric chairs used in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. "Old Sparky" is sometimes used to refer to electric chairs in general, and not one of a specific state.

Napoleon Beazley was an American convicted murderer executed by lethal injection by the State of Texas for the murder of 63-year-old businessman John Luttig in 1994.

Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the use of lethal injection as a form of execution in the state of Florida. The Court ruled unanimously that a challenge to the method of execution as violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution properly raised a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for civil rights violations, rather than under the habeas corpus provisions. Accordingly, that the prisoner had previously sought habeas relief could not bar the present challenge.

In United States law, habeas corpus is a recourse challenging the reasons or conditions of a person's confinement under color of law. A petition for habeas corpus is filed with a court that has jurisdiction over the custodian, and if granted, a writ is issued directing the custodian to bring the confined person before the court for examination into those reasons or conditions. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, ruling that criminal defendants sentenced to death may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once the state has set an execution date death-row inmates may litigate their competency to be executed in habeas corpus proceedings. This decision reaffirmed the Court's prior holdings in Ford v. Wainwright, and Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal.

Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (2007), was a case dealing with jury selection in capital cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that appeals courts must defer to a trial judge’s decision on whether a potential juror would be able to overcome demur about capital punishment and be open to voting to impose a death sentence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in Alabama</span> Legal punishment in Alabama

Capital punishment in Alabama is a legal penalty. Alabama has the highest per capita capital sentencing rate in the United States. In some years, its courts impose more death sentences than Texas, a state that has a population five times as large. However, Texas has a higher rate of executions both in absolute terms and per capita.

Zane Michael Floyd is an American convicted mass murderer who at the age of 23 killed four people and injured a fifth in a supermarket in Las Vegas, Nevada, on June 3, 1999. After being convicted of the murders, Floyd was sentenced to death by a Clark County jury.

Romell Broom was an American death row inmate who was convicted of murder, kidnapping and rape. He was sentenced to death for the 1984 murder of 14-year-old Tryna Middleton. Broom was scheduled to be executed on September 15, 2009, but after executioners failed to locate a vein he was granted a reprieve. A second execution attempt was scheduled for June 2020, which was delayed until March 2022. Broom died from COVID-19 in prison before the sentence could be carried out.

Tyrone Delano Gilliam Jr. was an American convicted murderer executed by the state of Maryland in 1998. Gilliam was convicted and sentenced to death for the kidnapping and murder of 21-year-old Christine J. Doerfler on December 2, 1988.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Kentucky.

Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the standards for challenging methods of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that when a convict sentenced to death challenges the State's method of execution due to claims of excessive pain, the convict must show that other alternative methods of execution exist and clearly demonstrate they would cause less pain than the state-determined one. The Court's opinion emphasized the precedential force of its prior decisions in Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross.

Ramirez v. Collier, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Matthew Reeves</span> American convicted murderer (1977–2022)

Matthew Reeves was an American convicted murderer who was executed by the state of Alabama for the 1996 murder of Willie Johnson Jr. Reeves's case generated attention due to claims he was intellectually disabled.

Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to death row inmates' as-applied challenges to methods of execution.

Oscar Franklin Smith is an American man convicted of capital murder in Tennessee and sentenced to death. Smith has maintained innocence and was scheduled to be executed on April 21, 2022, however, his execution was temporarily reprieved by Governor Bill Lee due to an oversight in the preparation for lethal injection.

<i>Glossip v. Chandler</i>

Glossip v. Chandler is a United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma case in which the plaintiffs challenged the State of Oklahoma's execution protocol. The initial lawsuit, Glossip v. Gross, rose to the United States Supreme Court in 2015 at the preliminary injunction stage and involved an earlier version of Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol. The case was reopened in the District Court in 2020 following an end to Oklahoma's moratorium on executions.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Supreme Court allows lethal-injection challenge". Baltimore Sun. May 25, 2004. Retrieved May 28, 2022.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Greenhouse, Linda (May 25, 2004). "Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Step Into Interstate Wine Rift". New York Times. Retrieved May 28, 2022.
  3. 1 2 Lane, Charles (December 2, 2003). "High Court to Clarify Ruling on Capital Punishment". Washington Post. Retrieved May 28, 2022.
  4. Lane, Charles (March 20, 2004). "Justices Weigh Challenge To Ala. Execution Method". Washington Post.
  5. 1 2 Von Drehle, Davie (May 25, 2004). "Court Rules in Ala. Inmate's Favor". Washington Post. Retrieved May 28, 2022.
  6. "U.S. Supreme Court Case Summaries: May 31, 2004". Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. May 31, 2004.
  7. Kovarsky, Lee (April 22, 2022). "Justices will clarify how death-row prisoners can contest a state's method of execution". SCOTUSBlog. Retrieved May 28, 2022.
  8. Tamber, Caryn (June 13, 2006). "Death-row lawyers hail Supreme Court's ruling". The Daily Record.