Experts say Court of Appeals ruling leaves death penalty in limbo

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The death penalty in Indiana cannot be carried out as of June 1. That’s the day a Court of Appeals panel declared the lethal injection cocktail adopted by the Department of Correction “void and without effect” because the agency enacted its execution protocol without hearings or public input.

Legal experts from Indiana’s law schools said the decision casts uncertainty on the death penalty going forward, though they said by no means is the court’s ruling a moratorium on future executions.

Lyon Lyon

“We’re at least 18 months to two years before anything happens” in terms of the state adopting a new execution protocol, predicted Valparaiso University Law School Dean Andrea D. Lyon, who’s written several books and scholarly articles on the death penalty. She explained that for the DOC to continue to carry out executions, it’s left with two options — seek to appeal the decision to the Indiana Supreme Court or begin the administrative rulemaking process. Neither of those processes would quickly resolve how Indiana executes death row inmates.

“I would be surprised if the Indiana Supreme Court took the case,” Lyon said. “It’s a pretty clear administrative ruling that follows a lot of precedent and a lot of common sense … even though it’s on a volatile subject.”

“We are disappointed with the Court of Appeals’ decision,” said Corey Elliot, spokesman for Attorney General Curtis Hill, after the panel ruled in Roy Lee Ward v. Robert E. Carter, Jr., Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction, and Ron Neal, Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison, in their official capacities, 46A03-1607-PL-1685. “At this point, we are closely reviewing the case, consulting with our client agency and considering all possible options, one of which is to ask the Indiana Supreme Court to review the case.”

The COA reversed LaPorte Circuit Judge Thomas J. Alevizos’ dismissal of a death row inmate’s civil case. Judge John Baker wrote for the court that the Legislature did not explicitly exempt the DOC from the Administrative Rules and Procedure Act, so it must conduct public hearings and accept public comments in formulating an agency rule on how the state will carry out executions.

Administrative review could present the DOC with more political than practical problems, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law professor David Orentlicher and other experts said. An administrative rules procedure would compel DOC to propose its execution protocol, which would then be subject to public hearings, public comment, and heightened scrutiny.

orentlicher-dave-mug.jpg Orentlicher

“Part of the reason it’s become difficult to execute is public sentiment has shifted so much,” Orentlicher said. He and others noted Americans are no longer solidly in favor of capital punishment, and some surveys have shown an even divide or a majority who disfavor the death penalty. Botched executions and wrongful convictions in the news in recent months are part of the reason support for lethal injection has declined, he said.

Meanwhile, Orentlicher said companies don’t want to be known as manufacturers of drugs used as part of the lethal-injection cocktail, and fewer physicians are willing to assist in administering a fatal dose.

Racial bias and other factors also play a role in declining support for the death penalty, he said, and studies show executions are not always reserved for those cases deemed “the worst of the worst.”

Among other things, “It depends on the prosecutor, the jury, and how good your defense lawyer is,” he said. “What we’re finding is, it turns on inappropriate factors, who gets the death penalty.”

Notre Dame Law School professor Rick Garnett also noted the ruling came against the backdrop of ongoing debate about the death penalty generally, and lethal injection in particular. Nevertheless, he said the DOC could adopt the same lethal injection protocol that the COA voided, which includes a drug never used in a U.S. execution, as long as it does so in accordance with ARPA.

garnett Garnett

“Even if the ruling stands, it does not directly limit Indiana’s ability to impose capital punishment but instead only requires the development of rules,” Garnett said.

Still, he said, “Several high-profile cases have reminded the public that the mere fact lethal injections appear clinical and ‘modern’ does not mean they are humane. Many have argued that far greater care is needed by state officials and prison administrators to make sure that, assuming capital punishment continues, condemned criminals do not suffer painfully and unconstitutionally.”

Indiana University Maurer School of Law professor Joseph Hoffmann doubts the ruling will have long-term implications for the death penalty in Indiana. “The Indiana Court of Appeals basically said if the Department of Correction wants to make a new protocol for a lethal injection drug, it needs to be treated as an agency rule” rather than as a policy, as the state had argued. “It doesn’t say anything at all about the merits. … The agency is free in the end to make whatever decision it thinks is the right decision.”

hoffmann-joseph-mug Hoffmann

Even so, he noted, “Right now, obviously, nationwide, these drug protocols are getting all kinds of scrutiny.”

Indiana’s voided formulation — a never-before-tried drug called methohexital (known by the brand name Brevital), along with pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride — was adopted internally by DOC and disclosed some time later.

Before Steve Creason, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General’s chief counsel of appeals, could begin his defense of the DOC’s protocol during oral arguments last month, he faced a hypothetical about the state’s means of execution from presiding Judge Baker.

“So, you have a press conference tomorrow and you say, ‘You know what we’re going to use? We’re going to use water.’ Is that OK?”

“Yes,” Creason said, before clarifying, “That probably wouldn’t meet legal requirements related to cruel and unusual punishment.”

Roy Lee Ward, the plaintiff in this case, was sentenced to death in 2007 for the 2001 rape and murder of 15-year-old Stacy Payne in Spencer County. According to the DOC’s website, there are 12 men on Indiana’s death row at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City. One of the men, Wayne Kubsch, had his conviction and sentence tossed out last year by the full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and is awaiting retrial. A woman on Indiana death row is housed in Ohio.

Representing Ward, Fort Wayne attorney David Frank said the state sought to characterize Ward’s suit as an attempt to bar the death penalty, which he said wasn’t the case. No executions are currently scheduled.

The DOC “was trying to issue a new lethal injection protocol by themselves that has never been used,” Frank said. “Before we execute a human being in manner that’s never been done before in the history of country, maybe we should have some public discussion on it.”

Lyon noted more states have abandoned the death penalty, and there isn’t the political danger there once was for politicians to oppose capital punishment. “Indiana,” she noted, “is alone in the 7th Circuit with the death penalty.”•


  • death penalty
    If the courts are 100% sure they are guilty then I am for the death penalty as long as they don't let them live 15 years by appeals. That way the family of the vic has put up with all the time not finished. It would change killers minds about what they were doing!!!

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. Hello everyone am precious from the united state of America am here to testify in the name of this great man who has brought back happiness into my family after my lover Chris left me for 3years for another woman,i really loved Chris because he was my first love i tried everything within my power to get Chris back to my life but people i met just kept on scamming me and lying to me,Then normally on Saturdays i do go out to make my hair and get some stuff,Then i had people discussing at the saloon if they do listen to there radio well,That there is a program (how i got back my ex)And started talking much about Dr EDDY how this man has helped lots of people in bringing back there lover,So immediately i went close to those ladies i met at the saloon and i explained things to them they said i should try and contact Dr EDDY that he has been the talk of the town and people are really contacting him for help immediately we searched on the internet and read great things about Dr EDDY i now got all Dr EDDY contact instantly at the saloon i gave Dr EDDY a call and i shared my problem with him he just told me not to worry that i should just be happy,He just told me to send him some few details which i did,And then he got back to me that everything would be okay within 36hours i was so happy then Dr EDDY did his work and he did not fail me,My lover Chris came to me in tears and apologized to me for leaving me in deep pain for good 3years,So he decided to prove that he will never leave me for any reason he made me had access to his account and made me his next of kin on all his will,Now the most perfect thing is that he can't spend a minute without seeing me or calling me,Am so grateful to Dr EDDY for bringing back the happiness which i lack for years,Please contact Dr EDDY for help he is a trustworthy man in email is or you can call him or whatsapp him with this number...+23408160830324 (1)If you want your ex back. (2) if you always have bad dreams. (3)You want to be promoted in your office. (4)You want women/men to run after you. (5)If you want a child. (6)[You want to be rich. (7)You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever. (8)If you need financial assistance. (9)If you want to stop your Divorce. 10)Help bringing people out of prison. (11)Marriage Spells (12)Miracle Spells (13)Beauty Spells (14)PROPHECY CHARM (15)Attraction Spells (16)Evil Eye Spells. (17)Kissing Spell (18)Remove Sickness Spells. (19)ELECTION WINNING SPELLS. (20)SUCCESS IN EXAMS SPELLS. (21) Charm to get who to love you.

  2. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: Here are the two research papers: 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  3. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.