Louisiana prepares first execution using nitrogen gas after 15-year pause
Louisiana is set to put a condemned man to death using nitrogen gas Tuesday evening in its first execution since 2010, which would make it only the second state to administer the controversial method.
The execution of Jessie Hoffman Jr., convicted in the 1996 murder of a woman abducted from a New Orleans parking garage, is scheduled for between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. local time at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola.
Hours before the planned execution, a state district court judge rejected an attempt by Hoffman's lawyers to obtain a temporary pause. Gov. Jeff Landry, who signed a bill last year making nitrogen hypoxia a legal alternative to lethal injection, is not expected to intervene either.
However, an outstanding appeal remains before the U.S. Supreme Court. Hoffman's lawyers on Monday argued that the method violates his constitutional rights, including his ability to practice his Buddhist religion in his final moments.
"It would be unconscionable for the Supreme Court to allow Jessie to be executed before these questions of religious freedom and cruel and unusual punishment can be carefully and thoroughly resolved," Cecelia Kappel, a lawyer for Hoffman, said in a statement.
Hoffman, 46, said he began practicing Buddhism in 2002 and has used meditative breathing practices to calm his anxiety in prison. But by putting him to death using nitrogen hypoxia, which involves placing a mask over his face and having him breathe only nitrogen while depriving him of oxygen, an anticipated "sense of suffocation" would be "incompatible" with his right to religious exercise, according to his lawyers.
"The record evidence unrebutted by the State establishes that, in Buddhist tradition, meditative breathing at the time of death carries profound spiritual significance, founded in the core belief that meditation and unfettered breath at the time of transition from life to death determines the quality of rebirth," his lawyers wrote in a filing asking the Supreme Court to temporarily halt his execution.
Whether the high court will be swayed remains to be seen, but the conservative-majority justices have routinely declined to block nitrogen gas executions in Alabama, which began using the method last year.
Louisiana Corrections Secretary Gary Westcott selected nitrogen hypoxia as Hoffman's method of execution after officials have had trouble procuring the necessary lethal injection drugs following the state's last execution in 2010. More than 50 people are on Louisiana's death row.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick in Louisiana temporarily stopped Hoffman's execution after she found it deserves more scrutiny and said she was troubled that the state waited to release only a redacted nitrogen hypoxia protocol to the public.
Hoffman's lawyers had offered alternatives to nitrogen hypoxia at a hearing before the judge, including the method of firing squad or a drug cocktail typically associated with physician-assisted death, although neither option is legal in Louisiana.
A federal appeals court reversed the lower court's temporary injunction Friday, in part, it said, because allowing Louisiana to choose a "more painful" execution method such as firing squad would be at odds with the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
In the nitrogen hypoxia executions in Alabama, media witnesses have described inmates appearing to remain conscious longer than expected, gasping for breath and thrashing and shaking on the gurney.
Alabama officials have argued in court filings that the method is "swift, painless and humane" and that one of the inmates chose to hold his breath, which hindered his becoming unconscious faster.
Louisiana corrections officials said they traveled to Alabama to study how its nitrogen system functions. Louisiana subsequently built a nitrogen hypoxia facility at the Louisiana State Penitentiary consisting of an execution chamber, a valve and storage room, and an observation area.
Medical experts have warned that if the procedure is not carried out properly, even a small amount of oxygen's getting into the mask could lead to slow asphyxiation and prolong the time it would take to die.
State attorneys argue that Hoffman would still be able to breathe in the mask and that, if anything, "such deep breathing may well lead to him losing consciousness even more quickly."
Attorney General Liz Murrill said Friday on X that Hoffman's execution would be "justice for Mary 'Molly' Elliot, her friends, her family, and for Louisiana."
Hoffman was 18 in 1996 when he abducted Elliott, a 28-year-old advertising executive, at gunpoint from a New Orleans parking garage on the night before Thanksgiving Day. Prosecutors said he forced her to withdraw $200 from an ATM, then raped and shot her to death.
At Hoffman's trial in 1998, prosecutors told the jury that he confessed and said Elliott begged him not to kill her.
"When she asked for mercy, his response was to put a bullet through her head," said the prosecutor, Kim McElwee. "Jesse Hoffman has earned the death penalty."
Andy Elliott, the victim's husband, said in a statement that he has become "indifferent" to the use of the death penalty in the three decades since his wife's murder.
"However, I'm not indifferent to the uncertainty that has accompanied these many years. If putting him to death is the easiest way to end the uncertainty, then on balance I favor that solution. But, his death will not provide closure," Elliott said of Hoffman, adding, "That pain cannot be decreased by another death, nor by commuting the sentence of Molly's assailant to life in prison."
"Molly was a cherished person who missed out on motherhood, a promising and successful career, and a life in the country on the property we bought together," Elliott said.
"From my standpoint, hearing why he did this crime is the only hole that could be filled by Jesse himself, yet, he's never offered any explanation or remorse, not even to his own family," he continued.
Critics of nitrogen hypoxia have included the Louisiana coalition Jews Against Gassing, whose members have said the method "echoes" the Holocaust.
Hoffman's is one of four executions planned in the United States this week, including one in Arizona, which is scheduled to put an inmate to death by lethal injection for the first time since 2022.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about `troubling message'
Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about `troubling message' Jackson, one of the court's most liberal justices, wrote that her colleagues may be unintentionally showing preferential treatment for the Trump administration. Show Caption Hide Caption Ketanji Brown Jackson lights up stage at Broadway musical "& Juliet" Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson treated "& Juliet" fans to a special performance for one night only! WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is on a winning streak of getting quick assistance from the Supreme Court after lower courts have put the brakes on his policies. That's prompted one of the three liberal justices to write that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the administration. 'It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to 'personally identifiable information' while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the 'irreparable harm' factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson said the court `plainly botched' its evaluation of a Trump appeal Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. More Supreme Court wins for Trump In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices – Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
'Data can be weaponized': Ronan Farrow sounds alarm on DOGE access to private Social Security data
Ronan Farrow, contributing writer to the New Yorker, talks with Jen Psaki about the Supreme Court granting DOGE access to private, personal social security data, and how Elon Musk's agitated behavior, combined with the sensitivity of personal data, makes our new reality particularly perilous. "There is an erratic person who has his own complicated international alliances and business interests who is controlling key functionality that the American people depend on."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Suffers Embarrassing ‘Software Malfunction'
The U.S. Supreme Court has suffered an embarrassing technical screw-up after releasing the cases it would hear to attorneys and others in the legal community days ahead of schedule. It's the second such event in less than 12 months, following the accidental release of major case updates last year. Notifications about which cases would be granted or denied review next week were not supposed to be released until Monday, but an 'apparent software malfunction' saw the decisions released to lawyers on Friday afternoon. Mass confusion reigned as multiple attorneys compared the information in their inboxes to the court's online docket, which did not match up. As such, the court then made the unusual move of publicly releasing its orders list. 'Due to an apparent software malfunction, email notifications concerning action by the Court scheduled to be included on the order list set for release on Monday, June 9, at 9:30 a.m., were sent out this afternoon,' Supreme Court Public Information Officer Patricia McCabe said in a statement sent to reporters. 'As a result, the Court is issuing that order list now.' In June of last year, the court suffered a similar technical issue which saw a major abortion rights ruling briefly uploaded in error. This followed the serious leak of the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, which set off a major political firestorm. 'Accidents happen, and the court should be encouraged to provide more access to its rulings, like the email notification service that apparently caused today's glitch,' Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center has said. The Supreme Court has been contacted for comment.