IN RE: OHIO EXECUTION PROTOCOL LITIGATION. ALVA E. CAMPBELL, JR.; RAYMOND TIBBETTS v. JOHN KASICH, et al. - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Landry Butler on Feb 2, 2018

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1:

ARGUED: Erin G. Barnhart, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants. Peter T. Reed, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Attorneys 2:

ON BRIEF: Erin G. Barnhart, Allen L. Bohnert, David C. Stebbins, Adam M. Rusnak, Carol A. Wright, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, Columbus, Ohio, James A. King, PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants. Peter T. Reed, Eric E. Murphy, Michael J. Hendershot, Hannah C. Wilson, Jocelyn K. Lowe, Zoe A. Saadey, Charles L. Wille, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

Judge(s): BATCHELDER, ROGERS, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Two death-row inmates, Raymond Tibbetts and Alva Campbell, moved to enjoin their pending executions, claiming that Ohio’s midazolam- based, three-drug execution protocol presents a constitutionally unacceptable risk of pain and suffering. The district court considered the proffered evidence, determined that the inmates had not met their burden, and denied the requested injunctions. We AFFIRM.