Louisiana puts man to death in state's first nitrogen gas execution
Louisiana used nitrogen gas to put a man to death Tuesday evening for a killing decades ago, marking the first time the state has used the method as it resumed executions after a 15-year hiatus.
Jessie Hoffman Jr., 46, was pronounced dead at 6:50 p.m. at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, authorities said, adding the nitrogen gas had flowed for 19 minutes during what one official characterized as a 'flawless execution.'
Witnesses to the execution said Hoffman appeared to involuntarily shake or had some convulsive activity. But the three witnesses who spoke – including two members of the media – agreed that, based on the protocol and what they learned about the execution method, nothing seemed out of the ordinary. Witness Gina Swanson, a reporter with WDSU, described the execution from her viewpoint as 'clinical and procedural.'
She said there was nothing that occurred during the process that made her think 'Was that right? Was that how it was supposed to go?' Hoffman declined to make a final statement in the execution chamber.
He also declined a final meal.
It was the fifth time nitrogen gas was used in the US after four executions by the same method – all in Alabama. Three other executions by lethal injection are scheduled this week – in Arizona on Wednesday and in Florida and Oklahoma on Thursday.
Hoffman was convicted of the murder of Mary 'Molly' Elliott, a 28-year-old advertising executive who was killed in New Orleans. At the time of the crime, Hoffman was 18 and has since spent much of his adult life at the penitentiary in rural southeast Louisiana, where he was executed Tuesday evening.
After court battles earlier this month, attorneys for Hoffman had turned to the Supreme Court in last-ditch hopes of halting the execution. Last year, the court declined to intervene in the nation's first nitrogen hypoxia execution in Alabama.
Hoffman's lawyers had unsuccessfully argued that the nitrogen gas procedure – which deprives a person of oxygen – violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The man's lawyers, in a last-ditch appeal, also argued the method would infringe on Hoffman's freedom to practice religion, specifically his Buddhist breathing and meditation in the moments leading up to death. Louisiana officials maintained the method is painless.
They also said it was past time for the state to deliver justice as promised to victims' families after a decade and a half hiatus – one brought on partly by an inability to secure lethal injection drugs. The Supreme Court voted 5–4 in declining to step in. Hours earlier at a hearing Tuesday, 19th Judicial District Court Judge Richard 'Chip' Moore also declined to stop the execution.
He agreed with the state's lawyers who had argued the man's religion-based arguments fell under the jurisdiction of a federal judge who had already ruled on them, according to local news outlets.
Under the Louisiana protocol, which is nearly identical to Alabama's, officials had earlier said Hoffman would be strapped to a gurney before a full-face respirator mask fitted tightly on him.
Pure nitrogen gas was then pumped into the mask, forcing him to breathe it in and depriving him of the oxygen needed to maintain bodily functions. The protocol called for the gas to be administered for at least 15 minutes or five minutes after the inmate's heart rate reaches a flatline indication on the EKG, whichever is longer.
Two media witnesses to Tuesday's execution said Hoffman was covered with a gray plush blanket from the neck down. In the chamber with Hoffman was his spiritual adviser. Ahead of the execution and after the curtains closed to the viewing room, witnesses said they could hear Buddhist chanting.
The gas began to flow at 6:21 p.m., and Hoffman started twitching, media witnesses said. His hands clenched, and he had a slight head movement. Swanson said she closely watched the blanket over Hoffman's chest area and could see it rise and fall, indicating that he was breathing. She said his last visible breath appeared to be at 6:37 p.m. Shortly after, the curtains between the chamber and witness viewing room closed.
When they reopened, Hoffman was pronounced dead. Seth Smith, chief of operations at the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, witnessed the execution and also acknowledged Hoffman's movements. Smith, who has a medical background, said he perceived the convulsions to be an involuntary response to dying and that Hoffman appeared to be unconscious at the time.
Each inmate put to death using nitrogen in Alabama had appeared to shake and gasp to varying degrees during their executions, according to media witnesses, including an Associated Press reporter.
Alabama state officials said the reactions were involuntary movements associated with oxygen deprivation. Alabama first used nitrogen gas to put Kenneth Eugene Smith to death last year, marking the first time a new method had been used in the US since lethal injection was introduced in 1982. Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma specifically authorize execution by nitrogen hypoxia, according to records compiled by the Death Penalty Information Center.
Arkansas was added to the list on Tuesday. Seeking to resume executions, Louisiana's GOP-dominated Legislature expanded the state's approved death penalty methods last year to include nitrogen hypoxia and electrocution. Lethal injection was already in place.
On Tuesday, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed legislation allowing executions using nitrogen gas, making hers the fifth state to adopt the method. Arkansas currently has 25 people on death row.
Over recent decades, the number of executions nationally has declined sharply amid legal battles, a shortage of lethal injection drugs, and waning public support for capital punishment. That has led a majority of states to either abolish or pause carrying out the death penalty.
On Tuesday afternoon, a small group of execution opponents held a vigil outside the rural southeast Louisiana prison at Angola, where the state's executions are carried out. Some passed out prayer cards with photos of a smiling Hoffman and planned a Buddhist reading and 'Meditation for Peace.'
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said she expects at least four people to be executed this year in the state. Following Hoffman's execution, she said justice had been delayed for far too long and now Hoffman 'faces the ultimate judgement, the judgement before God.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
5 days ago
- Al Arabiya
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some difficulties
The US Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies - mass deportation - again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signaled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the US Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern US history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' Johnson added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice - on April 7 and on May 16 - have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention center in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,' the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The US government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on US soil,' said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, Mukherjee said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States.' A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government $6 million. Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' Mukherjee said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017-2021. The Supreme Court gave Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants - often called 'Dreamers' - who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship - a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on US soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being send there. Murphy on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' Johnson said.
Arab News
6 days ago
- Arab News
US top court lets Trump revoke legal status for 500,000 migrants
WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory Friday in his immigration crackdown, giving his administration the green light to revoke the legal status of half a million migrants from four Caribbean and Latin American countries. The decision puts 532,000 people who came from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to the United States under a two-year humanitarian 'parole' program launched by former president Joe Biden at risk of deportation. And it marked the second time the highest US court has sided with Trump in his aggressive push to deliver on his election pledge to deport millions of non-citizens, through a series of policy announcements that have prompted a flurry of lawsuits. But the opinion sparked a scathing dissent from two justices in the liberal minority who said the six conservatives on the bench had 'plainly botched' their ruling and undervalued the 'devastating consequences' to those potentially affected. The revoked program had allowed entry into the United States for two years for up to 30,000 migrants a month from the four countries, all of which have dismal human rights records. But as Trump takes a hard line on immigration, his administration moved to overturn those protections, winning a ruling from the Supreme Court earlier this month that allowed officials to begin deporting some 350,000 Venezuelans. The latest case resulted from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem canceling an 18-month extension of the temporary protected status of the migrants, citing in particular the 'authoritarian' nature of Nicolas Maduro's government in Venezuela. The department gave them 30 days to leave the country unless they had legal protection under another program. 'The court has plainly botched this assessment today,' Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in their dissent. The justices said the migrants face being wrenched from family and returning to potential danger in their native countries — or opting to stay and risking imminent removal. 'At a minimum, granting the stay would facilitate needless human suffering before the courts have reached a final judgment regarding the legal arguments at issue, while denying the government's application would not have anything close to that kind of practical impact,' Jackson said. None of the other justices gave reasons for their decision, and the court was not required to make the vote public. The district court that barred the administration from revoking the migrants' status had argued that it was unlawfully applying a fast-track deportation procedure aimed at illegal immigrants to non-citizens protected by government programs. At the Supreme Court, Justice Department lawyers said the 'district court has nullified one of the administration's most consequential immigration policy decisions' by issuing the stay. The high court's decision means the Trump administration can go ahead with its policy change, even as the litigation on the merits plays out in lower courts. Trump campaigned for the White House on a pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants, evoking an 'invasion' of the United States by hordes of foreign criminals. Among other measures, he invoked an obscure wartime law to fly more than 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members to a prison in El Salvador. But his program of mass deportations has been thwarted or restricted by numerous court rulings, including from the Supreme Court and notably on the grounds that those targeted should be able to assert their due process rights. And the administration has been berated over its efforts to restrict immigration from poor countries with human rights concerns like Afghanistan and Haiti, while accepting white South African refugees amid baseless claims that they face 'genocide.' The Trump administration systematically accuses judges who oppose his immigration decisions of plundering his presidential national security powers.
Al Arabiya
27-05-2025
- Al Arabiya
FBI announces new probes into White House cocaine incident and Dobbs Supreme Court leak
The FBI will launch new probes into the 2023 discovery of cocaine at the White House during President Joe Biden's term and the 2022 leak of the Supreme Court's draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, a top official announced on Monday. Dan Bongino, a rightwing podcaster-turned-FBI deputy director, made the announcement on X, saying that he had requested weekly briefings on the cases' progress. Both incidents have been popular talking points on America's right. The discovery of a small bag of cocaine in a cubby near the entrance to the West Wing two years ago drew excited commentary from Republicans, including Donald Trump, then the Republican presidential candidate, who said it was implausible that the drugs could belong to anyone beyond Biden and his son Hunter - even though the Biden family was away from Washington at the time. A White House spokesperson at the time said that the allegations were 'incredibly irresponsible.' A spokeswoman for Biden declined to comment on Monday about the new probe. The May 2, 2022, publication of the Supreme Court's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which ended the constitutional right to abortion, provoked condemnation from Trump, who called the source of the leak 'slime' and demanded that the journalists involved be imprisoned until they revealed who it was. Previous investigations into both cases, by the Secret Service and the Supreme Court, respectively, ended without identifying who was responsible for the cocaine or the leak. The Supreme Court and the Secret Service didn't immediately return messages seeking comment on Monday. Bongino has previously alleged, without presenting any evidence, that he was in touch with whistleblowers who told him they were 'suspicious' that evidence from the White House cocaine bag 'could match a member of the inner Biden circle.' Bongino also announced more resources for the FBI's investigation into the placement of pipe bombs at the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee in Washington in January 2021. The bombs, which were later defused, had been planted the night before Trump's supporters stormed the US Capitol in a failed bid to block Congress from certifying Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election. The perpetrator has never been publicly identified.
