Murderpedia

 

 

Juan Ignacio Blanco  

 

  MALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

  FEMALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

 

 

 
   

Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.

   

 

 

Clarence Edward HILL

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
Classification: Murderer
Characteristics: Robbery
Number of victims: 1
Date of murder: October 19, 1982
Date of birth: December 2, 1957
Victim profile: Stephen Taylor, 26 (Pensacola Police Officer)
Method of murder: Shooting
Location: Escambia County, Florida, USA
Status: Executed by lethal injection in Florida on September 20, 2006
 
 
 
 
 

Hill v. McDonough

 
 

full text of the supreme court's decision

 
 

appeal from the united states district court for the northern district florida

 
 

application for permission habeas corpus petition and for stay of execution

 
 

petition for a writ of certiorari

 
 

brief for petitioner

 
 

respondent's briefs on the merits

 
 

reply brief for petitioner

 
 

brief amici curiae of human rights advocates, human rights watch, and minnesota advocates for human rights in support of petitioner

 
 

brief for the united states as amicus curiae supporting respondents

 
 

on remand from the united states supreme court

 
 

appeal from the united states district court for the northern district florida

 
 
 
 
 
 
Hill v. McDonough

Supreme Court of the United States
 

Argued April 26, 2006
Decided June 12, 2006

Full case name:


Clarence E. Hill v. James R. McDonough, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al

Citations: 547 U.S. 573; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 4674
Prior history:

Petition dismissed, M.D. Fla., Jan. 21, 2006; affirmed, 437 F.3d 1084, 11th Cir.; cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 1189 (2006)
 

Holding


Because a death row prisoner's Eighth Amendment challenge to the method of execution was not a habeas corpus petition, but instead stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. ß1983, his claim could not be barred by his previously filed petition for habeas relief. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
 

Court membership

Chief Justice
John G. Roberts, Jr.

Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito
 

Case opinions
Majority by: Kennedy
Joined by: Unanimous Court
Laws applied


U.S. Const. amend. VIII; U.S. Const. amend. XIV; 28 U.S.C. ß 2244; 42 U.S.C. ß 1983
 

 

Hill v. McDonough 547 U.S. 573 (2006), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court challenging the use of lethal injection as a form of execution in the state of Florida. The Court ruled unanimously that a challenge to the method of execution as violating the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution properly raised a claim under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983, which provides a cause of action for civil rights violations, rather than under the habeas corpus provisions. Accordingly, that the prisoner had previously sought habeas relief could not bar the present challenge.

Factual background

In 1983, Clarence E. Hill was convicted of the murder of a Pensacola, Florida police officer, and subsequently sentenced to death. In 1985, in the Florida Supreme Court case of Hill v. State. At a resentencing hearing in 1986, Hillís death sentence was reinstated, this time being upheld by the Florida Supreme Court. In November 1989, a warrant for Hillís execution was signed by then Governor Robert Martinez, after which Hill sought postconviction relief in both the Florida state courts and the U.S. District Court. In 1992, Hillís relief was granted when it was ruled that the Florida Supreme Court as well as Hillís trial court had not properly reevaluated the aggravating factors warranting a death sentence when one of them was vacated. In Hill v. State, the Florida Supreme Court, having sufficiently reweighed the mitigating factors, resentenced Hill to death. Hill then sought federal habeas corpus relief, which was first denied by the U.S. District Court, then affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Lethal injection in Florida

In January 2000, the Florida legislature amended its state statutes changing the prescribed method of execution from electrocution to lethal injection, unless the person sentenced to death affirmatively elects to be executed by electrocution. The precise authority by which lethal injection was to be carried out was left to the Florida Department of Corrections.

The Florida Department of Corrections does not publish its information about lethal injection, and so the only source available describing Floridaís use of the lethal injection death penalty comes from Sims v. State, which indicated that the lethal injection death penalty was carried out by first administering sodium pentothal, an anesthetic, then pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes the lungs, and followed lastly by potassium chloride, which inflicts cardiac arrest.

Lower court proceedings

On November 29, 2005, Florida Governor Jeb Bush signed a warrant for Hillís execution, which was to be carried out on January 24, 2006. Upon the signing of his death warrant, Hill requested information from the Department of Corrections regarding the specific methods by which lethal injection were carried out. Sims v. State permitted the Florida Department of Corrections to change its procedures for carrying out the lethal injection death penalty as it saw fit, and Hill sought to find out how those procedures had changed, if at all. The Florida Department of Corrections refused to comply with Hillís request.

Florida state courts

Because the information in Sims v. State seemed to suggest the possibility of causing great bodily harm, Hill filed, on December 15, 2005, a petition for postconviction relief in the state of Florida and requested an evidentiary hearing to investigate whether or not the stateís lethal injection death penalty did, in fact, cause bodily harm. The Circuit Court for Escambia County denied Hillís motions for postconviction relief and for an evidentiary hearing. Hill then appealed to the Florida Supreme Court on January 3, 2006. In January 17, 2006, Floridaís High Court affirmed.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Three days later, on January 20, Hill filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging that Floridaís lethal injection death penalty would cause great bodily harm in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Hill requested an injunction barring his execution until his claims could be judged upon as well as a permanent injunction barring the Department of Corrections from utilizing the lethal injection death penalty. Hill did not, however, challenge his death sentence.

The next day, the U.S. District Court denied Hillís petition, contending that standing case law was clear on the matter of jurisdiction. Under Robinson v. Crosby and In re Provenzano, the District Court held that Hillís claim was the same as a petition for habeas corpus, and, as a result, was required to be dismissed because Hill had not filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b).

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

With Hillís execution approaching fast, Hill filed an emergency appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which, on the day of Hillís execution, affirmed the U.S. District Court. They agreed with the lower court that Hillís suit was, in fact, a habeas corpus petition, and the District Court was right to dismiss.

Certiorari granted

The same day, Hill petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari and requested a stay of execution. Justice Kennedy granted a temporary stay, which was followed up the next day by a granting of certiorari from the entire Court and a full stay of execution.

Parties and counsel

Petitioner

The petitioner in Hill v. McDonough is Clarence Edward Hill. In the lower courts, Hill is also the plaintiff-appellant.

Respondents

In the lower courts, the respondents in Hill v. McDonough were James V. Crosby, Jr., the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, and Charlie Crist, the Attorney General of Florida. In the lower courts, both Crosby and Crist were defendants-appellants.

Since the lower court rulings, James V. Crosby, Jr. has been replaced by James R. McDonough, the interim Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections.

Hill has amended his suit to include McDonough and exclude Crosby. Crist remains as a respondent.

Counsel

Hillís counsel of record is D. Todd Doss of Lake City, FL. Assisting him in the appeal are Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Ian Heath Gershengorn, and Eric Berger, all of whom are from Jenner & Block LLP. John Abatecola, a private attorney from Sunrise, FL, is also assisting.

McDonough and Cristís attorney of record is Carolyn M. Snurkowski, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for the state of Florida. Charlie Crist is also assisting.

Counsel Amicus Curiae

Amicus Curiae for Hill are Human Rights Advocates, Human Rights Watch, and the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights. They are represented by Constance de La Vega, Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco, whose office is at the Frank C. Newman International Human Rights Law Clinic. Assisting is David Weissbrodt, a Regents Professor as well as a Frederickson & Byron Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota.

Amicus Curiae for McDonough and Crist are the Solicitor Generalís Office, the Attorney Generalís Office, and the Department of Justice. They are represented by Paul D. Clement, the United States Solicitor General. Assisting him are Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher, Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre, Assistant Solicitor General Kannon K. Shanmugam, and Department of Justice Attorney Robert J. Erickson.

Briefs of the petitioner and respondent

In Hillís brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, two questions are presented:

Question One

1. Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the chemicals utilized for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. ß 2254.

Hill's brief

By invoking 42 U.S.C. 1983, Hill argues that the procedures for carrying out lethal injection as prescribed by the Florida Department of Corrections are intended to violate his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. The Eleventh Circuitís dismissal of his petition, Hill argues, fails to adjudicate his Eighth Amendment claim, and, accordingly, requests the Eleventh Circuit's ruling be reversed.

Government's brief

The government contends that, because the end result of Hillís suit is to challenge a death sentence, the claim must be filed under the 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas statute, under which such challenges are supposed to be filed. Accordingly, the government requests the Eleventh Circuitís ruling be affirmed.

Hill's rebuttal brief

Hill rebuts the government by saying that habeas claims under 28 U.S.C. 2254 are reserved for challenges for the death penalty as a whole, whereas challenges for the specific method of execution should be controlled by 42 U.S.C. 1983. Accordingly, Hill requests the Eleventh Circuitís ruling be reversed.

Question Two

2. Whether, under this Courtís decision in Nelson, a challenge to a particular protocol the State plans to use during the execution process constitutes a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. ß 1983.

Hill's brief

Citing Nelson v. Campbell, Hill argues that, because his petition is only challenging the method by which the state of Florida intends to execute him, and not the death sentence itself, the Court is required to entertain his petition, and, accordingly, requests the Eleventh Circuitís ruling be reversed.

Government's brief

The government challenges Hillís reading of Nelson, contending that claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 are only cognizable if a habeas challenge has been entertained. Accordingly, the government requests the Eleventh Circuitís ruling be affirmed.

Hill's rebuttal brief

Hill rebuts the government by saying that Nelson controls so long as a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983 is specific to the method of the execution and not the sentence itself. Accordingly, Hill requests the Eleventh Circuitís ruling be reversed.

The Court's decision

The Supreme Court handed down its decision on June 12 2006.

Wikipedia.org

 

 

 
 
 
 
home last updates contact