'Déjà vu all over again' Tennessee death row inmates challenge lethal injection

Nine Tennessee death row inmates are suing the state over its push for a new round of lethal injections after an execution was abruptly called off in 2022 and a follow-up investigation found scores of missteps in several executions, reported The Associated Press.

More than a decade ago, Richard Glossip, and several other death row inmates challenged lethal injection is Tennessee.  The U.S. Supreme Court denied his their claim of cruel and unusual punishment, Glossip v. Gross, 576 US 863 (2015). On a side note, Glossip made his way back to the Supreme Court this year, and the high court granted him a new trial and a chance to be exonerated, Glossip v. Oklahoma, 22-7466.

The lawsuit was filed March 14 in state court, nearly three months after officials announced a new lethal injection protocol using the single drug pentobarbital. The Tennessee Supreme Court recently agreed to schedule executions for four inmates with the first set for May.

The lawsuit argues that pain and suffering from executions using pentobarbital violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. They also contend that the Tennessee Department of Correction has failed to make changes to the execution process as the governor and an independent investigator recommended — or if it has, it has not told the public. Rather, the lawsuit claims, department officials wrote a new protocol with few specifics, making it harder to hold them accountable.

The attorney general’s office said it is reviewing the lawsuit. A Correction spokesperson declined to comment on it.

Tennessee’s lethal injection problem

Tennessee executions have been paused since 2022, when the state admitted it had not been following its most recent 2018 lethal injection protocol. Among other things, the Correction Department was not consistently testing the execution drugs for potency and purity. Tennessee’s last execution was by electrocution in 2020.

An independent review of Tennessee’s lethal injection practice, which GOP Gov. Bill Lee ordered while pausing executions, found none of the drugs prepared for the seven inmates executed since 2018 had been fully tested — including the canceled 2022 execution.

Later, the state attorney general’s office conceded in court that two of the people most responsible for overseeing Tennessee’s lethal injection drugs “incorrectly testified” under oath that officials were testing the chemicals as required. Two department officials with execution-related duties were fired.

The new lawsuit says the Department of Correction has said nothing publicly about whether it has fixed some issues raised, despite telling a federal judge it would complete recommendations by the governor and the independent investigator, former U.S. Attorney Ed Stanton.

For instance, the governor directed the department to review and overhaul its execution training procedures. Stanton, meanwhile, recommended hiring someone full-time or as a consultant with a pharmaceutical background to offer guidance on the lethal injection protocol. Stanton also suggested hiring a full-time specialist for chemical testing standards, and storage of testing results and the chemicals themselves.

From three drugs to one

Tennessee is moving from a three-drug series to just one, the barbiturate pentobarbital. Fifteen states and the federal government have used pentobarbital in executions, and five others plan to, according to the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center. Previously, Tennessee struggled to obtain the drug because pharmaceutical companies were hesitant to fuel executions. The state has not said publicly how it plans to obtain pentobarbital.

In prior lawsuits, attorneys for the Tennessee prisoners had argued pentobarbital was preferable to the three drugs — midazolam, vecuronium bromide and potassium chloride.

That’s because U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires inmates challenging an execution method to detail a “known and available alternative,” even if they also consider the alternative unconstitutional. They’ve named other alternatives, including the firing squad.

In the latest lawsuit, the attorneys argue that death by pentobarbital could feel like drowning or suffocation as the lungs fill with liquid.

The lawyers cite research released after their previous lawsuits. And they noted that the Department of Justice under then President Joe Biden raised concerns about pentobarbital’s potential for causing “unnecessary pain and suffering” during executions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never struck down an execution method as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Police Can Lie to a Suspect to Get a Confession

 Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
April 1, 2025

In 1969, Martin Frazier and an accomplice were convicted in Oregon of second-degree murder.

During an interview with police, "the officer questioning (Frazier) told him, falsely, that (his accomplice) had been brought in and that he had confessed." That was a lie. Frazier was still reluctant to talk, but when the officer persisted Frazier "began to spill out his story."

Frazier's case made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Frazier argued that his confession was involuntary because the police lied to him about his accomplice's confession. Justice Thurgood Marshall, writing for the majority, ruled "The fact that the police misrepresented the statements that (the accomplice) had made is, while relevant, insufficient, in our view, to make this otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible."

The Frazier decision provided a precedent for a confession being voluntary, even though deceptive police tactics were used. Police departments have run with the decision ever since and haven't looked back.

According to the Cato Institute, police routinely employ a variety of manipulative practices, including lying about the existence of incriminating evidence like DNA, fingerprints or an accomplice's confession. Police also falsely imply leniency in exchange for "taking responsibility."

These techniques are core components of interrogations across the country. Deception is taught as a fundamental police training technique, tolerated by judges and considered a widely accepted law enforcement practice. The upside for police is the streamlining of investigations — a confession is often the end of an interrogation and the end of an investigation for that matter.

The downside is that the use of deceptive interrogation techniques significantly increases the risk of false confessions. The psychological pressure and manipulation inherent in deceptive interrogation tactics can induce even an innocent suspect to admit to a crime.

When faced with repeated assertions that incontrovertible evidence exists to secure a conviction — such as an eyewitness — some suspects begin to doubt their recollections, reported the Cato Institute.

Saul Kassin, professor emeritus of psychology at Williams College wrote in Time Magazine in December of 2022, "Within the scientific community, proof of the risk posed by the false evidence ploy is beyond dispute. Basic psychology research in a multitude of venues shows that misinformation can alter people's visual perceptions, beliefs, emotions, physiological states, memories, and the decisions they make."

Policymakers should question the role deception plays in criminal investigations and consider policies to limit its pervasiveness.

Ironically, Oregon recently became one of the first states in the country to ban police deception during the interrogation of juvenile suspects.

While juveniles and people with cognitive deficits or mental illnesses are particularly vulnerable when it comes to deceptive interrogation techniques, it is important to also understand that capable adults without any limitations regularly provide false confessions.

A person might falsely confess due to stress, exhaustion, confusion, feelings of hopelessness and inevitability, fear of harsher punishment for a failure to confess, substance use, mental health problems or a history of trauma due to sexual abuse or domestic violence.

Even more troubling is the fact that judges and juries often take confessions at face value. Confessions are often not critically scrutinized. The Innocence Project suggests regulating techniques and methods employed in the interrogation room.

For instance, policymakers should limit the length of interrogations, as research shows the reliability of statements after two hours of sustained interrogation decreases. Policymakers should also implement trauma-informed interviewing methods, which not only protect victims of emotional, physical and sexual violence, but also improve the reliability of statements made by suspects of crime.

In addition, interrogations from start to finish should be recorded. Currently, 30 states and the District of Columbia mandate the recording of interrogations, either by statute or court action.

In some states — California, Connecticut and New York — legislative proposals mandating an assessment of reliability for all confessions before admission at trial are currently pending.

These measures are meaningful attempts to reduce false confessions, but there is still a long way to go.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Lawyers need to join the fight!

The Trump administration is openly targeting Biglaw firms for their representation of clients and causes adverse to the president’s political agenda. Five top firms — Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie, Paul Weiss, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale — have found themselves on the receiving end of Trump’s retaliatory executive orders, reported Above the Law. On top of these (likely unconstitutional) executive actions, Trump has sicced the EEOC on 20 Biglaw firms over their DEI policies, with the agency launching full-scale investigations into their alleged “unlawful” employment practices.

Outside support for these law firms has come from more than 50 bar associations, nearly 80 law school deans, and now more than 3,000 lawyers and legal organizations from both sides of the political spectrum have sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, pleading with America’s top government lawyer to step in and defend the rule of law by opposing not just attacks on these law firms, but on judges as well.

The letter, which was put together by the Society for the Rule of Law Institute and Democracy Forward, urges Bondi to live up to what she promised to do during her confirmation hearings and refuse to back “partisan weaponization” of the Justice Department. Here’s an excerpt from the letter:

It is your responsibility, as the lawyer ultimately entrusted with the representation of the United States in legal matters, to oppose attacks on the legal profession, on judges, and on the rule of law and to ensure that the Department of Justice uses its full power to protect the legal profession and equal justice under law for all people. …

It is incumbent on you to use all of the tools available to you to preserve and protect the independence and integrity of the legal profession, including opposing the use of the federal government to attack lawyers, law firms, and legal organizations for engaging in good faith representation of their clients.

Reuters has additional details on some of the lawyers who signed the letter:

Republican signatories included J. Michael Luttig, a former U.S. appeals court judge; former U.S. Representative Barbara Comstock, a senior advisor at Baker Donelson; Peter Keisler, a former acting U.S. attorney general under President George W. Bush; and Donald Ayer, a former top Justice Department lawyer under President George H.W. Bush.

Democrats who signed the letter included Marc Elias, a longtime lawyer for Democratic politicians whom Trump has criticized, and Norm Eisen, whose group the State Democracy Defenders Action is suing the Trump administration in several cases.

If you agree that Attorney General Pam Bondi should do her job properly by standing up for the legal profession and the rule of law, please click here to add your name to the list of signatories.

To read more CLICK HERE

AG Bondi indicates investigation into military operation breach unlikely

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled that there was unlikely to be a criminal investigation into the sharing of military operation details in an unsecured text group, declaring that the specifics of when fighter jets would depart and when bombs would fall were “not classified,” reported The New York Times.

Ms. Bondi, speaking at a news conference in Virginia, was asked about the public debate surrounding Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after he sent details of a coming attack on rebels in Yemen to senior administration officials in a Signal group chat that accidentally included a magazine editor.

“It was sensitive information, not classified, and inadvertently released,” Ms. Bondi said, while praising the military operation that ensued.

“What we should be talking about is it was a very successful mission,” she said, before quickly accusing Democrats from previous administrations of mishandling classified information.

“If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was in Hillary Clinton’s home,” she said. “Talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden’s garage, that Hunter Biden had access to.”

The Justice Department opened investigations into Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Biden in those instances, but neither ultimately faced criminal charges. She did not mention the prosecution of Donald J. Trump over his handling of classified documents after his first term in office — a case that was ultimately abandoned when he won a second term.

In this case, Ms. Bondi seemed to be ruling out any similar investigation to determine all the facts.

Dating back to at least the Reagan administration, the government has considered the details of “military plans, weapons or operations” to be classified.

The F.B.I., along with the Justice Department, could still investigate the matter, but agents and prosecutors typically do not pursue cases if the information is not classified.

Under the Espionage Act, it is possible for people to be charged with crimes for mishandling national defense information that is not classified, but such prosecutions are very rare.

To read more CLICK HERE

Mangino discusses arrest of fire chief on Law & Crime Network

Watch my interview with Kennedi Walker of Law & Crime Network discussing the arrest of a Pennsylvania fire chief for fracturing the skull of his three month old son.

To watch the interview CLICK HERE

The most outrageous post-verdict in court celebration ever!

Watch the most outrageous post-verdict in court celebration ever! Check out my response on Court TV with host Ted Rowlands.

 

To watch the clip CLICK HERE

Louisiana seeks constitutional amendment to draw more juveniles into adult court

When Louisiana reversed its “Raise the Age” law in early 2024, moving all 17-year-olds back into the adult criminal system, it became the first and only state in the nation to enact such a reform, intended to shield youth from adult prisons, only to then repeal it. Since then, sheriffs of some of the biggest parishes in the state have struggled to accommodate the influx of minors into their jails. Now, Louisiana lawmakers are seeking to go a step further: They’ve proposed an amendment to the state constitution that would give themselves more leeway to decide what crimes can send children even younger than 17 into adult court—and potentially adult prison, reported Bolt. 

On March 29, Louisianans will vote on Amendment 3, a constitutional amendment that would hand legislators the power to add, with a two-thirds majority vote, any felony to the list of charges that would qualify a child to be treated like an adult in the eyes of the law. In Louisiana, this includes crimes like making a fake ID or stealing a phone. The state constitution currently restricts the crimes for which minors aged 14 and up can be charged as adults to a list of 16 serious felonies including murder, rape, and armed robbery. 

The amendment’s sponsor, Republican state senator Heather Cloud, says the limits on charging children as adults have “hamstringed” Louisiana from being able to address juvenile crime. Some of the bill’s supporters have expressed a deeply pessimistic view of Louisiana’s youth population; in a House committee hearing last fall, Republican lawmaker Tony Bacala told his colleagues, “Some of these kids are already lost when they’re two years old.” 

The move has alarmed advocates across the state, who are urging a no vote. “This is just casting the net wider to get young people inside the system,” Antonio Travis, the youth organizer for the group Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children, told Bolts.

“These are grasps for more power,” said Sarah Omojola, the executive director of Vera Institute New Orleans. “We’re really trying to cage up and defund Louisiana’s future.”

Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry sat in chambers during the House’s debate and vote on the amendment in November, a signal of his support. Its content is consistent with a broader effort by Landry and his allies in the legislature to establish more serious and lasting consequences for young people accused of crimes. In 2023, as attorney general, Landry campaigned for a bill that would have made young people’s criminal records public—but only for residents of the state’s three most populous parishes, which are all majority-Black. The bill was sponsored by state representative Debbie Villio, a former prosecutor and ally of Landry’s who brought the constitutional amendment alongside Cloud. 

Both Landry and Villio insisted at the time that this targeting was about crime rates, not race, but organizers were appalled. “How could a person not look at the evidence and see that this is an intentional attack on certain communities?” Travis asked. The bill died in the senate amidst widespread accusations of racism. But in 2024, during a special session on crime that Landry called as his first official act as governor, Bacala brought back a new version that applied equally to every parish, which passed. Landry promptly signed it into law. 

Before 2017, the year Louisiana’s “Raise the Age” law took effect, “the education system was definitely, definitely feeding our youth justice system,” Travis told Bolts. “Kids were getting incarcerated from truancy. Kids were getting incarcerated from being suspended too much.” 

The reform moved 17-year-olds into the juvenile justice system as a default, though those accused of serious crimes could still be transferred to adult court. “This narrative of these hard criminals … that narrative was slowly being done away with,” Travis said. “The general public was recognizing that these are kids and they deserve resources.”

But this new day in Louisiana wouldn’t last long. There were a few abortive efforts to overturn “Raise the Age”: one bill that Landry, then attorney general, supported died in 2022; another was vetoed by then-Governor John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, in 2023. But this year, with Landry as governor, the legislation passed and became law last April. Landry feted the change on X, writing: “No more will 17-year-olds who commit home invasions, carjack, and rob the great people of our State be treated as children in court. These are criminals and today, they will finally be treated as such.”

The fallout was immediate: Any 17-year-olds already in custody were transferred to adult facilities, and all 17-year-olds arrested from then on were processed and treated as adults, meaning that their criminal history also becomes public record. The vast majority of these young people were not accused of home invasions, carjacking, or robbery, it turns out. Of the 203 17-year-olds arrested in the state’s three largest parishes during the first five months under the new law, ProPublica found that nearly 70 percent were charged with nonviolent crimes, like trespassing or marijuana possession. Only 13 percent were charged with serious felonies—and prosecutors already had the discretion to send young people accused of these crimes into adult court. 

Erika Jupiter, statewide organizing manager for Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children’s, told Bolts that the change has had the effect of separating young people from their families and communities. ”Parents are very worried about the experience their children are having, and also it’s harder for them to communicate with their children,” she told Bolts. “If your child is in that adult facility, you may go weeks without knowing a status on what’s happening with them.” 

Recognizing that minors are at increased risk of physical and sexual assault in prison, the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act requires them to be “sight and sound” separated from adult prisoners. This has resulted in adult prisons placing young people in solitary confinement or in “pods,” which Jupiter described as “windowless shipping containers.” “It’s still inhumane,” she said. Officials have also shipped kids to prisons over 150 miles away from their original facility since the law took effect. “You have children going so far away from home, and their parents can’t visit,” Jupiter said.

To read more CLICK HERE