Judge says lethal injection doesn't violate rights of man on death row, avoids firing squad question
Nance, 63, was convicted and sentenced to death for killing Gabor Balogh in 1993. Nance had just robbed a Gwinnett County bank and abandoned his own car after dye packs hidden in the stolen money exploded. Balogh was backing out of a parking space at a liquor store across the street when Nance pulled open the car door and shot him, according to court filings.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Nance's lawyers argued that his veins are tough to find by sight and that those that can be seen are compromised. There is a substantial risk that his veins could 'blow' during an execution, causing the drug to leak into surrounding tissue and cause intense pain, they wrote.
His lawyers also argued that Nance's longtime use of a medication for back pain could make the pentobarbital used in lethal injections ineffective or less effective.
Boulee noted that a doctor who testified for the state during a bench trial in May indicated that since Nance's suit had been filed he had undergone three separate medical procedures that required an IV to be placed and that there had been no problems.
On the issue of whether his longtime use of a pain medication could interfere with the execution drug, Boulee cited the testimony of a doctor called by Nance's lawyers who said 'no one actually knows' what the effect would be.
Advertisement
The US Supreme Court has said that to challenge an execution method under the Eighth Amendment, a person must show that the method creates 'a substantial risk of serious harm' and that there are 'known and available alternatives' that are 'feasible, readily implemented' and that will significantly reduce the risk of severe pain.
That is why Nance's lawyers had raised the possibility of the firing squad.
The lawsuit was initially filed in January 2020, and Boulee ruled in March of that year that Nance's arguments were procedurally barred because he'd waited too long to make them and that he had failed to show his constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment would be violated.
Nance appealed and a panel of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that since lethal injection is the only method of execution authorized by Georgia law, Nance was effectively challenging the validity of his death sentence. The panel said Nance was procedurally barred from bringing that type of challenge.
Nance appealed to the US Supreme Court, which overturned the 11th Circuit ruling. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion that in challenging Georgia's execution method he was 'not confined to proposing a method authorized by the executing State's law.' There is no reason to believe that amending state law to allow executions by firing squad would be a 'substantial impediment' to carrying out the death sentence, she wrote.
That is how the case landed back before Boulee, who held a bench trial in May during which he heard testimony that execution by firing squad would result in a quick death. But because Nance failed to show that his medical conditions would cause him to suffer severe pain during a lethal injection, the judge said he had 'no need to address' the firing squad argument.
Advertisement
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Do Cops Still Need a Warrant To Search Your Home in an 'Emergency'?
You're probably familiar with the old adage that "a man's home is his castle." It's the idea that agents of the state may not lawfully enter your home uninvited for any reason that suits them; rather, the state's agents must have a legitimate and verifiable cause. James Madison and his colleagues wrote this view into the U.S. Constitution via the Fourth Amendment, which famously protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that involves the modern application of that adage and its venerable constitutional corollary. Depending on the outcome, it may prove to be one of the most consequential Fourth Amendment cases in years. At issue before the Supreme Court this fall in Case v. Montana is the following question: "whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause." In other words, at what point may police officers enter your home without a warrant if they think that an emergency might be happening inside? The matter arose in 2021 when the ex-girlfriend of a man named William Trevor Case told the authorities that Case had threatened to kill himself during a phone call with her. The cops showed up at Case's house but nobody answered the door. Looking through a window, they saw empty beer cans, a notepad, and an empty handgun holster. After debating among themselves for some 40 minutes about what do to next, the cops finally decided to enter without a warrant via the unlocked front door. (I pause here to note that 40 minutes does sound like a sufficient amount of time for the police to at least try to get a search warrant.) Case was upstairs hiding in a closet. When he revealed himself by opening the closet's curtain, the officer who was searching the room shot him, striking Case in the abdomen. Case was thus shot by a cop, even though the cop had entered Case's home without a warrant for the ostensible "emergency" purpose of preventing Case from shooting himself. Case was later charged with assault on that officer, with the charge ultimately amended to state that Case "knowingly or purposefully caused reasonable apprehension of serious bodily injury in Sgt. Richard Pasha when he pointed a pistol, or what reasonably appeared to be a pistol, at Sgt. Richard Pasha." Case's lawyers sought to have the evidence used against him ruled inadmissible on the grounds that it was the fruit of an "illegal search and seizure of [Case] and his residence." But the Montana Supreme Court ruled against Case, stating that "while an individual is entitled to a right to privacy in their home, a warrantless entry is permissible if it is reasonable given the facts and circumstances." The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether the state high court's judgment can be reconciled with the Fourth Amendment. Given the significant constitutional stakes involved, it is no wonder that this case has already attracted the keen interest of prominent civil liberties groups from across the political spectrum. For instance, among those who have filed amicus briefs in support of Case are the libertarian Cato Institute, the liberal American Civil Liberties Union, and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund. These groups may disagree with each other on plenty of other legal issues, but they are in agreement here that Case's Fourth Amendment rights were abused. As the brief filed by the Cato Institute and Americans for Prosperity Foundation put it, "Warrantless home entries based on mere reasonable suspicion of exigent circumstances violate the Fourth Amendment and needlessly threaten the safety of citizens and law enforcement. If Montana police did not have probable cause to enter Case's home, their search should be declared unconstitutional." We'll soon find out whether a majority of the justices agree with that assessment or whether they prefer the Montana Supreme Court's more lenient interpretation of what counts as "reasonable" behavior by the cops. The post Do Cops Still Need a Warrant To Search Your Home in an 'Emergency'? appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
New York Post
a day ago
- New York Post
Man convicted of killing woman abducted from insurance office to be executed in Florida's 10th execution of the year
A man convicted of abducting a woman from a Florida Panhandle insurance office and killing her is scheduled to be executed Tuesday evening. Kayle Bates, 67, is set to receive a lethal injection at 6 p.m. at Florida State Prison near Starke under a death warrant signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. It would be Florida's 10th death sentence carried out in 2025, further extending the state record for a single year. Two more executions are planned within the next month. Advertisement 3 Kayle Bates, 67, is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection at 6 p.m. at Florida State Prison in Starke, under a death warrant signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis. AP Since the US Supreme Court restored the death penalty in 1976, the highest previous annual total of Florida executions was eight in 2014. Florida has executed more people than any other state this year, while Texas and South Carolina are tied for second place with four each. Advertisement Bates was convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, armed robbery and attempted sexual battery in the June 14, 1982, killing of Janet White in Bay County in the Florida Panhandle. Bates abducted White from the insurance office where she worked, took her into some woods behind the building, attempted to rape her, stabbed her to death and tore a diamond ring from one of her fingers, according to court documents. Attorneys for Bates have filed appeals with the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court, as well as a federal lawsuit claiming DeSantis' process for signing death warrants was discriminatory. 3 Bates was found guilty of murdering Janet White in Bay County on June 14, 1982, along with charges of kidnapping, armed robbery, and attempted sexual battery. Family Handout Advertisement The federal lawsuit was dismissed last Tuesday, with the judge finding problems with the lawsuit's statistical analysis. The court ruled that even if the numbers were correct, they wouldn't necessarily prove discrimination. On the same day, the Florida Supreme Court denied Bates' pending claims, including arguments that evidence of organic brain damage had been inadequately considered during his second penalty phase. The court ruled that Bates has had three decades to raise these claims. A US Supreme Court decision is still pending on Bates' final appeal. 3 It would be Florida's 10th death sentence carried out in 2025, further extending the state record for a single year. AP Advertisement A total of 28 men have died by court-ordered execution so far this year in the US, and at least 10 other people are scheduled to be put to death in seven states during the remainder of 2025. Curtis Windom, 59, is set to become the 11th person executed in Florida on Aug. 28. He was convicted of killing three people in the Orlando area in 1992. David Pittman, 63, would be the 12th person executed in Florida if his death sentence is carried out as scheduled Sept. 17. He was found guilty of fatally stabbing his estranged wife's sister and parents at their Polk County home before setting it on fire in 1990. Florida executions are carried out using a three-drug lethal injection: a sedative, a paralytic and a drug that stops the heart, according to the state Department of Corrections.
Yahoo
12-08-2025
- Yahoo
San Francisco and other cities, following a Supreme Court ruling, are arresting more homeless people for living on the streets
Homelessness is on the rise in the United States, and in some places, it is becoming more common for the police to arrest someone for sleeping or living in a public space. In June 2024, the Supreme Court issued a ruling, Grants Pass v. Johnson, that determined it is constitutional to issue citations to or arrest homeless people, even when there is no available shelter. The ruling reversed earlier federal appeals court rulings from 2019 and 2022 that determined cities cannot enforce anti-camping laws against homeless people if there are not enough shelter beds available for them. The Supreme Court's ruling also determined that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments does not protect homeless people from laws criminalizing resting in public places. As someone who has spent more than a decade researching homelessness and speaking with unhoused communities, I have seen firsthand how enforcement of such laws imposes unavoidable hardships on homeless people and makes it harder for them to find a stable home. A rise in punitive action against homelessness In 2024, there were an estimated 771,480 people in the U.S. who experienced homelessness on a single night, the highest number ever recorded. Since June 2024, almost 220 local measures have passed that restrict or ban acts like sleeping, sitting or panhandling in public in cities that include Phoenix; Gainesville, Florida, and Reno, Nevada. The rate of unsheltered homelessness, meaning homeless people who are sleeping in places that are not meant for humans to rest in, like parks or cars, is the highest in California. After the Supreme Court's decision, California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order in July 2024 that directs state agencies and departments to adopt new policies that remove homeless encampments. Those are temporary outdoor living spaces used by homeless people, often on public or private property. Following this executive order, more than two dozen California cities and towns adopted or considered adopting sweeping bans on homeless encampments. Not every leader has embraced this approach of what some observers call criminalizing homelessness. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, for example, rejected criminalizing homelessness as 'backwards' in June 2024. Nevertheless, many cities are enforcing existing and new bans on homeless encampments more aggressively than before the Supreme Court decision – despite evidence that such enforcement is not effective in dealing with the problem of homelessness. The impacts of aggressive enforcement Research shows that arresting someone without a home for sitting, resting or sleeping in a public place does not reduce homelessness. Instead, encampment sweeps and camping bans typically displace people from one area to another, while discarding or destroying their personal belongings in the process, such as identification cards, medications and sleeping gear. This approach also wastes public resources by paying groups to throw away people's belongings instead of investing that money into actual housing solutions, like creating more affordable housing options. Homeless encampment sweeps by police or other government officials are also shown to make people living in camps sicker, leading to increases in hospitalizations and even deaths among those dependent on drugs or alcohol. A punitive shift in San Francisco San Francisco is an example of an American city with a relatively large homeless population that has taken a more aggressive approach to enforcing bans on homeless encampments over the past year. A few weeks after the Supreme Court decision, then-San Francisco Mayor London Breed promised to be 'very aggressive' in removing homeless encampments. She also said that 'building more housing' would not solve the homelessness crisis. City data shows that in the 12 months since the Supreme Court ruling, San Francisco police had arrested more than 1,000 homeless people for living in a public space – a scale of enforcement rarely seen in the city's past. In the year leading up to the ruling, 111 people were arrested for illegal lodging San Francisco identified approximately 8,300 homeless city residents in 2024. In June 2025, I conducted a survey of 150 homeless people in San Francisco. About 10% of those people who gave a reason for a recent arrest reported being jailed for lodging without permission. Another 6% said they were arrested for trespassing. In the same survey, which is part of an ongoing project, 54% of homeless San Francisco residents reported being forced to move from a public space at least once. Another 8% reported being cited for another reason related to trespassing. A less aggressive path in Portland Other western American cities with large homeless populations have taken slightly different approaches to removing homelessness encampments since June 2024. Portland, Oregon, for example, began enforcing a new daytime camping ban in July 2024. But Portland police have only made 11 arrests of homeless people for camping-related violations over the past year. Other homeless people in Portland have received police citations for other offenses, like trespassing. As part of my June 2025 study, I surveyed 150 homeless Portland residents. About 49% of respondents reported having been arrested at some point in their lives. Though no respondents were arrested for camping in a prohibited place, 68% of people I spoke with reported that police or other government officers forced them to leave a public space at some point over the past year. And 13% of those who gave a reason for being cited by police said it was for camping in a prohibited place. Another 11% of homeless people were cited for some other reason related to living without shelter. As part of the study, I also interviewed residents who had been arrested while living on the street. One Portland resident I interviewed – who asked not to be named to preserve their anonymity – told me they lost the chance to rent an apartment because they were arrested in 2023 on a preexisting, unrelated warrant after a police officer checked their ID – just days before they were supposed to pick up their keys. 'Many unhoused people have warrants simply for failing to appear after being cited for sitting or resting in public space,' they said. 'I was supposed to go get the keys and, bam, I got picked up. I was arrested and went to court. Just me being in jail for five, six or five days screwed it all. I didn't show up to get the keys, and then (the landlord) couldn't get ahold of me, and they had no idea what was going on.' The weeklong jail stay not only pushed this person back onto the street, but it also put them back onto a waiting list for housing – where they remain in 2025. Looking ahead The Supreme Court's 2024 ruling did not mandate that cities criminalize homelessness. But it effectively gave cities the green light to do so without fear of violating people's constitutional protections. The effects of this ruling will be further felt with President Donald Trump's July 24, 2025, executive order that ended federal support for approaches like Housing First, a policy that prioritizes providing homeless people with housing, before any other needed help. The order also calls for involuntarily committing homeless people with mental illness to mental health institutions. As more cities consider tougher encampment ordinances, I think it is worth considering if more punitive measures really address homelessness. Decades of evidence suggest they won't. Instead, arresting homeless people often deepens their poverty, increases displacement and diverts public funding away from the real solution – stable, affordable housing. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Stephen Przybylinski, Michigan State University Read more: Supreme Court to consider whether local governments can make it a crime to sleep outside if no inside space is available Many more Denver teens have experienced homelessness than official counts show Supreme Court rules cities can ban homeless people from sleeping outdoors – Sotomayor dissent summarizes opinion as 'stay awake or be arrested' Stephen Przybylinski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
