Nebraska: Electric chair unconstitutional

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A landmark ruling from the Nebraska Supreme Court this morning means that the last state allowing electric chair executions can't use the method because it's considered cruel and unusual punishment.

The 6-1 ruling today in State of Nebraska v. Richard Mata, Jr., S-05-1268, affirms the death sentence but stays the execution. The court decided that the legislature may vote to have a death penalty but not one that offends rights under the state constitution. Because the decision is based solely on state law, the U.S. Supreme Court won't review the ruling.

The court ruled on the case of Raymond Mata Jr., who was convicted by a jury for the May 1999 kidnapping, murder, and dismemberment of 3-year-old Adam Gomez, his ex-girlfriend's son. A three-judge panel later sentenced him to die.

"We recognize the temptation to make the prisoner suffer, just as the prisoner made an innocent victim suffer," Justice William Connolly wrote. "But it is the hallmark of a civilized society that we punish cruelty without practicing it. Condemned prisoners must not be tortured to death, regardless of their crimes."

Chief Justice Michael Heavican disagreed in a 17-page dissent that execution was "cruel and unusual," noting that he sincerely believes this precedent will have adverse consequences on future cases. But he joined the majority on a variety of other issues in the case, including that Mata should be executed for the crime.

This decision comes at a time when state and federal courts, along with the 36 states allowing the death penalty, are struggling with these issues. All states except Nebraska - including Indiana - use a three-chemical lethal injection method, which is currently being challenged in the nation's highest court. Justices heard arguments in January on a case involving two Kentucky condemned inmates.

All that debate and today's Nebraska decision gives Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, three Indiana attorneys, and a law professor something more to talk about on a radio show this weekend.

As part of his "Crime Beat" program airing at 8 p.m. Sunday, Brizzi will tackle the death penalty through the eyes of the prosecution, defense, and academia. Guests include Rick Kammen, Gilroy Kammen & Hill, and Bob Hammerle, Hammerle & Allen, both on the defense side; David Wyser, Marion County Prosecutor's Office; and professor Henry Karlson, Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis.

The live, weekly show airs on WIBC, 93.1 F.M. from 8 to 10 p.m. Sundays. Brizzi discusses matters relating to public safety, the justice system, and current events. Following the Feb. 10 show, the program moves to its new regular timeslot at 3 to 5 p.m. Saturdays.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit