April 28, 2008

I’ve been engaged in social justice advocacy for more than 25 years. In that time, I’ve seen how important a fair and accurate criminal justice system is to our society. When crimes are committed, our system should determine the truth. Unfortunately, time and time again, the system gets it wrong.

Earlier this month, Glen Chapman of North Carolina became the 128th prisoner on death row to be released since 1972. The courts found that detectives committed perjury at Chatman’s trial and withheld potential evidence of his innocence from his defense attorneys. The forensic evidence was so bad that one of the two homicides pinned on Chapman may in fact have been a drug overdose. Chatman, who spent 14 years behind bars, was also a victim of bad defense lawyering.

Chapman’s exoneration doesn’t prove the system works. Just the opposite: It shows how a broken system produces spectacular failures that are bad for defendants and victims alike. That’s why I founded The Justice Project, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system.

A large part of our work involves educating citizens and criminal justice stakeholders about the serious problems and common-sense solutions in a way that creates an environment for reform. People need to know that these problems are not rare or isolated incidents. Stories like the one mentioned above are reported every day around the country, but all too often they reach a limited audience or wind up lost in the shuffle of other news coverage.

This is why we have helped launch The Tennessee Justice NewsLadder a new web site designed to make staying on top of developments in criminal justice reform easier. The Tennessee Justice NewsLadder pulls together daily news articles, blog posts, videos and other media so that real-time information is readily accessible with the click of a mouse. On The Tennessee Justice NewsLadder, you’ll find information about the problems of unreliable witness identification, false confessions, junk forensic science and more. You’ll also find stories of people taking on the difficult work of making the system better.

You can play an important role in making the Justice NewsLadders an essential tool for criminal justice reform. The format allows anyone who signs up to post a link, recommend a link, comment on a story and raise the profile of a story by voting it up the ladder. The more people join and the more information they post to the NewsLadder, the better informed we all will be.

Access to information is essential to understanding the issues and being able to take action to create a more just and humane world. We hope The Tennessee Justice NewsLadder will help more people understand not only the challenges we face, but also the actions we need to take to achieve a more just and accurate criminal justice system.

John F. Terzano is President of The Justice Project, a nonpartisan organization that works to increase fairness and accuracy in the criminal justice system, with a focus on the capital punishment system. The blog was originally published on The Huffington Post to introduce The Justice NewsLadder.

Many of the answers are in Pretend Justice – Defense Representation in Tennessee Death Penalty Cases, an article published in The University of Memphis Law Review by Bill Redick, Brad MacLean and Shane Truett of The Tennessee Justice Project.

Pretend Justice documents the systemic failure of Tennessee to provide effective representation to indigent defendants in capital cases. Tennessee’s failure to provide competent representation results in bad lawyering and a system that is unfair and unjust.

Virtually all capital defendants in Tennessee are indigent and must depend on the same government that seeks to execute them to also provide their defense representation. Most capital defendants are represented by overworked public defenders or appointed private counsels who lack the knowledge and resources to mount an effective defense.

Twenty-five Tennessee death penalty convictions or sentences have been overturned for due to bad lawyering, which is only a small percentage of the captial cases where inadequate defense representation has been provided. In addition, Gov. Phil Bredesen commuted the death sentence of Michael Joe Boyd in 2007 after finding that his appellate representation was “grossly inadequate.”

Tennessee can do much better, and Pretend Justice present a viable solution: the creation of an independent authority to set standards, provide resources and oversee the appointment of defense counsel in capital cases. An independent appointing authority would:

• Create standards for qualifications, performance, compensation, workload, and training for death penalty defense counsel.
• Recruit private appointed counsel, provide resource assistance, and occasionally provide direct representation in death penalty cases.
• Monitor the performance of counsel to ensure that quality representation is being provided and that cases are being adequately investigated.

Pretend Justice concludes that:

Though it may wish, intend, or pretend otherwise, Tennessee has not and is not meeting its constitutional obligations to provide equal justice to defendants charged, convicted, and sentenced to death. 

A statewide oversight authority that is independent of the judiciary will move Tennessee toward a fairer and more reliable administration of capital punishment.

Pretend Justice – Defense Representation in Tennessee Death Penalty Cases

• Pretend Justice Fact Sheet
• Appendix A: TN Death Penalty Cases in Which Relief Was Granted on Conviction or Sentence
• Appendix B: TN Death Penalty Cases in Which Relief Was Granted Due To Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC)
• Appendix C: TN Death Penalty Demographics
• Appendix D: TN Death Penalty Cases in Which Relief Was Granted in State Post-Conviction (Second Tier)” & “Appendix E: TN Death Penalty Cases in Which Relief Was Granted in Federal Habeas Corpus (Third Tier)
• Appendix F: Side-by-Side Comparison of Tennessee Procedures and Requirements of ABA Guidelines

Related Legislation

• Tennessee Death Penalty Representation Services Act of 2008  (SB 2682)
• Tennessee Death Penalty Representation Services Act of 2008  (HB 3334)

As Independence Day approaches, Americans are reminded of their freedom, liberty, constitutional rights and civic responsibilities. Our criminal justice system plays a vital role in protecting these values, ensuring that justice — not power, money or influence — prevails for all.

Our justice system was envisioned by our nation’s founders as a stool firm on three legs: the courts, the prosecution and the defense. These “legs” of justice rely on each other, and if any of them is wobbly, unreliable results will occur.

Unfortunately, as a new report on Tennessee prosecution and indigent defense funding reveals, the defense leg is not wobbly, but broken.

The report by The Spangenberg Group, one of the nation’s leading experts on state criminal justice systems, is the first comprehensive analysis of indigent defense and prosecution resources in our state. It documents the imbalance of resources between the prosecution and indigent defense functions: In fiscal year 2004-05, the defense function in all indigent cases received less than half what the prosecution received — only $56.4 million compared to $130 million-$139 million.

The gap grows even more significant when we consider extensive services law-enforcement agencies and forensic experts provide to prosecutors but not to indigent defenders. While these cannot be precisely quantified, Spangenberg determined that they effectively double prosecutors’ resources.

This disparity creates an uneven playing field that affects the reliability of cases from low-level misdemeanors to death penalty cases throughout the state. Too frequently, all that indigent defense attorneys can do is “meet and plead” their clients. They lack the time or resources to visit crime scenes, interview witnesses, conduct necessary investigations and forensic testing, retain experts, or perform other tasks required for effective defense. The problem has reached crisis proportions in Knox County, where indigent defense attorneys are so overburdened that they have about 53 minutes to spend on each misdemeanor case, 59 minutes per DUI case and 72 minutes per felony. Lack of attention to a misdemeanor case is one thing, but when this extends to capital cases, the potential consequences are far more injurious.

Funding for indigent defense attorneys must be raised to a level that corresponds appropriately to the resources of the prosecution. The state need not supply more indigent defense resources at the expense of the prosecution; the problem is not that the prosecution is overfunded, but that the defense is underfunded.

The right to adequate counsel is a constitutional requirement and necessary for our legal system to function fairly and reliably. Without it, there is an increased risk innocent people will be incarcerated, guilty people may never be prosecuted, and other defendants receive unfairly long sentences. Policymakers, prosecutors, defenders, judges and law enforcement alike should commit to bridging this funding gap to ensure justice for all — not just for those who can afford it. Anything less would be simply un-American.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE – A new report on prosecution and indigent defense funding in Tennessee has uncovered disturbing evidence of a significant and unfair imbalance of financial and other resources between the prosecution and indigent defense functions. The report is the first comprehensive analysis of indigent defense and prosecution resources in the state, and indicates that Tennessee’s indigent defense system is in dire need of reform. The Spangenberg Group, one of the nation’s leading experts on state criminal justice systems, authored the new study.

The report, Resources of the Prosecution and Indigent Defense Functions in Tennessee can be accessed online (pdf) along with a Resources of the Prosecution and Indigent Defense Functions in Tennessee Summary Analysis (pdf) prepared by The Tennessee Justice Project, who commissioned the study.

The report finds that in fiscal year 2004-2005 (the most recent year for which extensive funding information is available), the defense function in indigent cases received only $56.4 million – less than half of the $130 million to $139 million the prosecution received. This disparity affects cases ranging from misdemeanors to death penalty cases.

Furthermore, when taking into account “in-kind” services provided to the prosecution function from various federal, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies and experts, prosecutors receive more than four times as many resources than are provided to indigent defense counsel. While these “in-kind” services cannot be quantified on a state-wide basis, they account for millions of dollars worth of assistance provided annually to prosecutors by local law enforcement agencies in 95 counties and hundreds of towns and cities throughout the state, as well as by federal law enforcement and forensic crime labs.

“This imbalance of resources creates an uneven playing field which ultimately leads to greater financial and human costs and reduced public confidence in the criminal justice system,” said Bill Redick, Director of the Tennessee Justice Project. “When even the most capable and hard-working attorneys lack adequate resources to do their job, there is an increased risk that innocent people will be incarcerated, guilty people may never be prosecuted, and other defendants will receive unfairly excessive sentences.”

As a result of the underfunding of defense services, too frequently, all that indigent defense counsel can do is “meet and plead” their clients because they lack the time or resources to visit crime scenes, interview witnesses, conduct necessary investigations and forensic testing, retain experts, and perform other tasks required for effective defense.

“To ensure a properly functioning criminal justice system, funding for indigent defense attorneys must be raised to a level that corresponds appropriately to the resources of the prosecution,” said Bradley MacLean, a Nashville defense attorney and Assistant Director of The Tennessee Justice Project. “We are not suggesting a decrease in resources for the prosecution function. We are simply advocating for reasonable parity for indigent cases between the defense and the prosecution so that the defense counsel is included as an equal partner in the justice system.”

In performing the study, the Spangenberg Group examined fiscal year 2004-2005 funding information from a variety of sources, including the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts; the District Attorney Generals’ Conference; the Public Defenders’ Conference; the Indigent Defense Fund; and other federal, state, county, and local governmental funding sources involved in indigent criminal prosecution and defense.

The Spangenberg Group further examined the findings of the report by utilizing two additional analyses:

• A “per unit” comparison between prosecution and defense in indigent cases, dividing the funds available for prosecution and defense annually by the total numbers of attorneys in the district attorneys’ and public defenders’ offices, respectively. According to this comparison, district attorneys receive financial resources equal to $379,000 per district attorney per year, and public defenders receive financial resources equal to only $182,500 per public defender per year, a ratio of more than two-to-one in favor of the prosecution. (This “per unit” comparison of resources does not account for the “in-kind” services that further skew the balance.)
• A report by the Tennessee Comptroller, FY2005-2006 Tennessee Weighted Caseload Study Update, which found that in order for Tennessee to meet previously-determined caseload standards for prosecutors and public defenders, the district attorneys need an additional 22 attorney positions while public defenders need an additional 123 attorney positions. (According to the Weighted Caseload Study, in fiscal year 2005-2006 there were 459 prosecutors and 309 public defenders in Tennessee.)

“In the course of over three decades conducting nationwide research on the financial resources furnished to the prosecution and the defense in indigent criminal cases, the findings in Tennessee are the most telling examples of disparity we have found,” said the author of the report, Robert Spangenberg.

The Spangenberg Group is one of the nation’s foremost research and consulting firms that specializes in the evaluation of state criminal justice systems. Robert Spangenberg has over 30 years experience in this field, and during the past 20 years The Spangenberg Group has worked in all 50 states, conducting comprehensive statewide studies of criminal justice systems in more than half of the states. The Spangenberg Group has conducted several criminal justice system studies in Tennessee, including a 1999 Tennessee Public Defender Case Weighting Study for the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury.

The report was commissioned by The Tennessee Justice Project, a nonprofit organization committed to increasing the fairness and accuracy of the Tennessee indigent criminal justice system, with a particular focus on the administration of the death penalty. In pursuit of this mission, The Tennessee Justice Project educates the public, media, and policymakers in Tennessee about the problems facing the state’s criminal justice system and seeks necessary reforms.

Experts are also available to comment on the report, and interviews can be arranged through Laura Burstein at (202) 557-7584 or Katie Andriulli at (202) 557-7579.

###

The Justice Project [ http://www.thejusticeproject.org ] (TJP) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that addresses issues of social justice here and abroad. TJP’s Campaign for Criminal Justice Reform is a national initiative that addresses flaws in the American justice system.

• View the Press Release
• View The Tennessee Justice Project Summary Analysis (pdf)
• Read the Full Report (pdf)

In recognizing the impact new methods and technologies have on the determination of guilt or innocence and causes of wrongful convictions, the committee will perform a comprehensive review and generate recommendations on all facets of the Tennessee’s death penalty, including the risk of innocent people being executed.

Specifically, the committee will review the state’s indigent defense system to ensure the state is providing “effective defense counsel in all stages of litigation in capital cases” using ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Capital Cases (pdf) as a benchmark. Providing adequate indigent defense is a serious issue in Tennessee. Later this month, The Spangenberg Group — one of the country’s leading experts in state criminal justice systems — will release the first comprehensive analysis of indigent defense and prosecution resources in Tennessee. The report, Resources of the Prosecution and Indigent Defense Functions in Tennessee, examines funding for indigent cases ranging from misdemeanors to death penalty cases and uncovers new evidence that financial and other resources for the indigent defense and prosecution functions are significantly and unfairly imbalanced.

The 16 members of the Committee to Study the Administration of the Death Penalty include government leaders, attorneys, and criminal justice advocates from organizations including The Tennessee Justice Project. The committee would have one year to perform the study and report the results to the governor and the General Assembly.

House Bill 2162 was approved by a vote of 79-14, with two abstaining, on June 7. SB 1911, the Senate version of the bill, was passed unanimously on May 24. The bill now awaits signature from Governor Phil Bredesen.

Experts Available to Comment on Today’s Ruling

In an opinion issued today in the case of House v. Bell, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that Tennessee death row inmate Paul House is entitled to a new hearing in federal court because post-conviction DNA testing invalidated the prosecution’s theory that he raped and then murdered a woman more than 20 years ago. The Court’s opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy, affirmed that if the full body of evidence in the case, including DNA evidence, had been presented at trial, it is probable that no reasonable juror would have found House guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The case marks the first time that the Supreme Court has looked at the standards for reopening death penalty cases since DNA testing became widely available.

Experts are available to discuss today’s ruling, including Bill Redick, Director of The Tennessee Justice Project at (615) 255-7369, and Paul House’s attorney, Steven Kissinger at (865) 637-7979. Kelley Henry, attorney for Tennessee death row inmate Sedley Alley, whose case may be affected by today’s ruling, can be reached at (615) 736-5047. Barry Scheck of The Innocence Project, who is co-counsel for Sedley Alley, can be reached through Eric Ferrero at (212) 364-5346.

Paul House was convicted in Union County, Tennessee of the murder of Carolyn Muncey in 1985, and has been on death row for over 19 years. House has always maintained his innocence, yet a thorough investigation of the case on his behalf was not conducted until after the case had already been through the trial, appeal, and state post-conviction proceedings.

Today’s decision has the potential to impact other Tennessee death row inmates who have innocence claims pending before the Court, including Sedley Alley, whose execution last month was postponed so that he could pursue DNA testing. Alley currently has an execution date of June 28th.

###

The Justice Project [ http://www.thejusticeproject.org ] (TJP) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that addresses issues of social justice here and abroad. TJP’s Campaign for Criminal Justice Reform is a national initiative that addresses flaws in the American justice system.

As the first death row inmate exonerated by DNA, I know first-hand the importance of testing all available evidence in a case, especially when someone’s life is at stake. Tennessee inmate Sedley Alley currently sits on death row awaiting execution while potentially exculpatory evidence in his case remains untested.

Prosecutors in the case have been fighting tooth and nail to ensure that Alley is not granted access to available DNA evidence, which begs the question: What does the state have to fear by allowing the testing to go forward? I would answer that the state has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Had it not been for DNA testing, I would still be behind bars today, serving time for a crime I did not commit. In 1984, I was arrested for the brutal rape and murder of Dawn Hamilton, 9, in Baltimore County, Md. I was only 23 years old, and I had served four years in the United States Marine Corps. I had never been arrested before in my life, had never met Dawn and knew nothing about the crime.

The only thing linking me to the murder was a composite sketch of the last man seen with Dawn, who was said to have resembled me, and several eyewitnesses who incorrectly identified me as that man. Despite testimony from family and friends that I was with them at the time of the murder, the jury convicted me. By March 1985, I was trapped in the unimaginable nightmare of facing execution despite being innocent of the crime.

At the time of my first trial, DNA testing was not very advanced. However, by 1992, DNA testing was breaking new ground. My attorneys requested that the evidence from my case be released for testing, and the Baltimore County prosecutors finally agreed.

In May of 1993, a laboratory found that the semen stain on Dawn Hamilton’s underwear could not possibly have come from me. The FBI confirmed those results a month later. June 28, 1993, after spending eight years, 11 months, and 19 days of my life behind bars, I walked out of jail a free man.

In September 2003, nearly 10 years after my release, the Maryland state’s attorney found a match to the DNA evidence in my case. Ironically, it belonged to a man in my cell block in the Maryland Penitentiary who was in prison for another assault. He has since been convicted of the rape and murder of Dawn Hamilton and will spend the rest of his life in jail for crimes committed against her and others.

I spoke May 15 in front of the parole board that voted 4-3 to recommend a reprieve for Sedley Alley while the DNA in his case is tested. Gov. Phil Bredesen agreed to the reprieve, but unfortunately failed to take the vital next step and mandate that the evidence in Alley’s case be tested, once and for all. That reprieve has now run out.

There is no disadvantage to testing the DNA evidence — either to confirm guilt or prove innocence. In my case, it did both. Without the testing of DNA evidence in my case, the truth would never have come out, I would still be in jail, and Dawn’s family would have never known justice.

I wish I could say that my case is an isolated one, but I am one of 180 people who have been exonerated by DNA and one of 14 from death row. I am living proof that our criminal justice system makes mistakes. I was wrongfully convicted not once, but twice.

When you have a vehicle for truth — one that provides as much certainty as DNA testing does — you simply must use it. The DNA testing Sedley Alley seeks would only take a short time to complete and would be done at no cost to the state. Tennessee’s entire system of criminal justice — prosecutors, victims’ families, prisoners and, most of all, the public — is served by the certainty DNA evidence can provide.

There can be no downside to knowing the truth. I can only hope that it does not come too late for Sedley Alley.

April 24, 2006 –Tennessee faces a crisis which undermines the right of our citizens to have equal access to effective legal representation if they cannot afford counsel. Critically, the overwhelming majority of criminal defendants in Tennessee are indigent and must rely on the state to provide them with legal counsel. The Tennessee Supreme Court is charged with the responsibility to supervise the judicial system and to ensure that all citizens are treated equally under the law.

On Aug. 31, 2006 Tennessee Supreme Court Justices A. A. Birch and Riley Anderson will retire, opening up two vacancies on the court. Gov. Phil Bredesen will appoint their replacements from among candidates recommended by Tennessee Judicial Selection Commission. With two new members on a five-member court, the composition of the court will change significantly, making these appointments extremely important to our state. We should be concerned about these appointments.

Equal justice under the law is a cornerstone of our democracy, reflected in the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution; it is the American ideal. It is, however, not a reality in Tennessee. While there are exceptions, as a general rule the quality of legal representation provided by state-appointed counsel for indigent defendants is demonstrably inferior to that provided by counsel hired by those who can select and afford to pay for their own lawyer

The public defenders in Tennessee are burdened with some of the highest caseloads in the country and are paid a starting salary that is not much more than half that paid to new lawyers in private practice, according to an editorial published in The Tennessean Feb. 2. According to a “weighted caseload study” published this year by the state Comptroller’s Office, the state public defender offices are understaffed by 120 lawyers.

With the advent of the public defender offices in this state, private attorneys have increasingly been excluded from the appointment process. When private attorneys are appointed in criminal cases, however, they are paid only $40 to $50 per hour in non-capital cases, which may not be enough to pay the overhead costs of maintaining a law office and only $60 to $100 per hour in death penalty cases. While underpaid indigent criminal defense lawyers represent citizens whose life and liberty are at stake, the state hires lawyers to represent its property interests at the normal rate of up to $225 per hour but sometimes as much as $350 per hour. The provision of necessary extra-legal services for indigent defendants, such as investigators and forensic experts, is often inadequate, particularly in cases involving the more serious offenses.

Tragically, the most serious deficiencies in defense representation occur in cases in which human life is at stake. The American Bar Association sets clear and universally accepted standards for effective legal representation in death penalty cases. A study of the indigent defense system in Tennessee, published in 1992, found that Tennessee “falls short of virtually every standard,” and a report from the Tennessee Bar Association, published in 2004, found that Tennessee is “woefully out of step” with the existing American Bar Association standards.

A few years ago, the Tennessee Supreme Court implemented “qualification” standards for death penalty defense counsel. But these standards have resulted in a roster of attorneys eligible for appointment that excludes qualified attorneys and includes unqualified attorneys, some of whom have been suspended or censured by the Board of Professional Responsibility or convicted of crimes.

All of this means that the outcome of death penalty trials cannot be trusted. We run the risk of executing defendants, not because they are the worst offenders, but because they have the worst lawyers. These representation problems are part of the reason that litigation seemingly goes on forever in death penalty cases.

In the past, the courts often appointed the best available counsel to represent death penalty defendants. Unfortunately, the courts now increasingly tend toward the automatic appointment of the understaffed, underpaid local public defender who may or may not have the resources necessary to provide effective representation.

Tennessee needs two new Supreme Court Justices who are willing and able to address this crisis and protect our rights to equal justice under the law.

Bill Redick is the Director of the The Justice Project’s Tennessee Campaign.

* * * * *

This letter was reprinted with the permission of the author and appeared in The Tennessean.

Attorneys for Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman Available for Comment

Seventeen prominent Tennessee medical professionals filed an amicus brief today with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Tennessee death row inmate Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman challenging the constitutionality of Tennessee’s lethal injection protocol.

On February 15, 2006, lawyers for Abdur’Rahman filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Court challenging the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the state’s lethal injection protocol. Abdur’Rahman argues that the protocol, and the use of the drug pancuronium bromide, or “Pavulon,” in particular, is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment because of the risk that it will result in his suffering inhuman pain during his execution. Tennessee law and the ethical standards of the American Veterinary Medical Association prohibit the use of Pavulon in animal euthanasia because it is considered inhumane.

The doctors who participated in the amicus brief are prominent members of the Tennessee medical community, many of whom have specialized knowledge of anesthesia and surgery. In light of the protocol’s use of Pavulon and potassium chloride, these experts criticize the “myriad of deficiencies” in the Tennessee lethal injection protocol which lacks any safeguards against a “torturous” death. The experts are especially alarmed by three factors: the use of a highly unstable and sensitive drug, sodium thiopental, as the anesthetic for lethal injection; the lack of training of the individuals who administer the drugs; and the failure of the protocol to monitor the effectiveness of anesthesia.

As the experts state in the amicus brief, “There can be no dispute that the injection of either Pavulon or potassium chloride in an inmate who is not adequately anesthetized would…inflict unnecessary extreme pain and suffering.” Bradley A. MacLean, a lawyer for Abdur’Rahman, commented, “It is significant that medical experts of this caliber and prominence feel strongly enough about these issues to state their professional opinions to the Court at this stage of the case.”

In 1987, Abdur’Rahman (formerly James Lee Jones) was convicted of the stabbing death of a drug dealer during an armed robbery. Abdur’Rahman received the death penalty for the crime, while his codefendant testified against him in exchange for a sentence of less than death and was paroled after six years in prison.

Abdur’Rahman does not have an execution date, and is not challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty, per se, or even seeking to avoid lethal injection. The question before the Court is simply whether the Tennessee protocol presents an unreasonable potential to deny him his constitutional right to a dignified and humane execution. This case marks the first time that this issue has been presented to the Court on a full evidentiary record, and Abdur’Rahman’s case has no procedural issues that would prevent the Supreme Court from addressing the underlying merits of his claim.

At least thirteen other states are currently facing legal challenges to lethal injection, which in some cases have uncovered new and disturbing information regarding botched executions. On Wednesday, April 26, 2006, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Hill v. McDonough, a Florida case challenging procedures in the state’s lethal injection protocol.

Download the Tennessee Medical Professionals Amicus Brief (PDF).

Bradley A. MacLean, attorney for Abdur’Rahman, is available to comment on the case and can be reached at (615) 782-2237. Geoffrey F. Aronow, counsel of record on the amicus brief, is also available for comment and can be reached at (202) 912-2110.

###

The Justice Project [ http://www.thejusticeproject.org ] (TJP) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that addresses issues of social justice here and abroad. TJP’s Campaign for Criminal Justice Reform is a national initiative that addresses flaws in the American justice system.