Louisiana puts man to death in its first nitrogen gas execution
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.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
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.
Advertisement
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.
This undated photo shows Louisiana death row inmate Jessie Hoffman Jr., who was convicted in the 1996 murder of Mary "Molly" Elliott.
Caroline Tillman/Associated Press
Hours earlier at a hearing Tuesday, a 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.
Advertisement
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.
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 the lethal 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.
An undated photo provided by The Promise of Justice Initiative shows the gurney in the new execution chamber at the Louisiana State Penitentiary.
Uncredited/Associated Press
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.
Advertisement
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.'
Attorney General Liz Murrill said she expects at least four people to be executed this year in Lousiana. Ahead of Hoffman's execution, she said 'justice will finally be served' by putting him to death.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
High court blocks Hamas victims' try to reopen case against Lebanese bank
WASHINGTON, June 5 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously that it would not allow relatives of victims and survivors of Hamas attacks from 2001 to 2003 to reopen a case in which they accused a Lebanese bank of providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court ruled in BLOM Bank SAL vs. Michal Honickman, in an opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of extraordinary circumstances for reopening the case. When the case was originally tried in 2019, the relatives and victims lost because they failed to prove the bank knowingly took on clients affiliated with Hamas. The victims and relatives then wanted to offer evidence to which they claimed they had access later. They cited as precedent Rule 60(b), which outlines the reasons why a case could be reopened after a judgement has been issued, such as a mistake in the judgement or evidence unavailable to the plaintiffs during their original case. "It is Rule 60(b)'s standard -- and only Rule 60(b0's standard -- that applies when a party seeks relief from final judgement. A party seeking Rule 60(b) relief must always demonstrate 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying relief," the court wrote. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion in which she parted from her colleagues, warning that courts should not deny requests to reopen cases simply because the requesting party was given a chance to amend a case while it was ongoing. "In particular, I think the district court was wrong to fault plaintiffs for making a 'deliberate choice' to appeal the dismissal of their complaint in lieu of accepting various pre-dismissal opportunities to cure purported pleading deficiencies." Brown wrote. The victims and families accused the Lebanese bank of aiding and abetting attacks from 2001 to 2003 by providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. In 2019, the families attempted to sue the bank, but the judge dismissed the suit for not providing evidence that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court even asked the survivors and families' lawyer if they wanted to amend the case, but they declined. They later found evidence they said proves that the bank knowingly engaged with Hamas affiliates, so they went back to court to reopen their case. Their lawyer, Michael Radine, criticized the Supreme Court's decision. Radine said in a statement to UPI that the district court would not allow his clients to retry the case unless they could meet "the erroneous and essentially unmeetable pleading standards raised by the defendant and adopted by the district court." He added that the district court required evidence such as acts or statements from bank employees proving affiliations with Hamas before discovery. "Few plaintiffs will have access to a defendant's internal communications before discovery, which is why the [2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] tossed that pleading standard as 'too exacting,'" Radine said in the statement. During the original case, the families appealed to the 2nd Circuit and were turned down again, so they returned to the lower courts and asked to retry the case and submit evidence proving that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated individuals. They were told their case did not meet the requirement to be reopened, so the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit again. "Indeed, today's decision could empower district courts to prevent plaintiffs from amending their complaints whenever the state of the applicable law is unclear," Radine said. BLOM Bank SAL's lawyer Michael Hugh McGinley didn't respond to a request for comment.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with Smith & Wesson, blocks Mexico's $10B suit against gunmakers over cartel violence
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a $10 billion lawsuit Mexico filed against top firearm manufacturers in the U.S. alleging the companies' business practices have fueled tremendous cartel violence and bloodshed. The unanimous ruling tossed out the case under U.S. laws that largely shield gunmakers from liability when their firearms are used in crime. Big-name manufacturers like Smith & Wesson — which still produces guns in Springfield, Massachusetts — had appealed to the justices after a lower court let the suit go forward under an exception for situations in which the companies themselves are accused of violating the law. But the justices found that Mexico hadn't made a plausible argument that the companies had knowingly allowed guns to be trafficked into the country. 'It does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion. Mexico had asked the justices to let the case play out, saying it was still in its early stages. Asked about the case during her daily news briefing, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum pointed to another suit the country filed in 2022 against five gun shops and distributors in Arizona. 'There are two trials,' she said. 'We're going to see what the result is, and we'll let you know.' The case the Supreme Court tossed Thursday began in 2021, when the Mexican government filed a blockbuster suit against some of the biggest gun companies, including Smith & Wesson, Beretta, Colt and Glock. Smith & Wesson moved its headquarters and much of its operations from Springfield to Tennessee, but the company retains about 1,000 employees at its plant in Western Massachusetts. Operations that remain in Springfield include its forge, metal working, machining, finishing the assembly of Colt 1911-style handguns and revolver assembly. On Thursday, Mark Smith, Smith & Wesson president and CEO, said in a statement that the court's unanimous decision 'shutting down this ridiculous lawsuit' represented 'a big win for Smith & Wesson, but our industry, American sovereignty and, most importantly, every American who wishes to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights.' 'This suit, brought by Mexico in collaboration with U.S.-based anti-Second Amendment activist groups, was an affront to our nation's sovereignty and a direct attack on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,' Smith said in the statement. He called it the latest attack on the firearms industry 'in a blatant abuse of our legal system to advance their anti-constitutional agenda. 'To all American patriots — you can rest assured that Smith & Wesson will always stand and fight for your constitutional rights at every turn,' Smith said. Mexico has strict gun laws and has just one store where people can legally buy firearms. But thousands of guns are smuggled in by the country's powerful drug cartels every year. The Mexican government says at least 70% of those weapons come from the United States. The lawsuit claims that companies knew weapons were being sold to traffickers who smuggled them into Mexico and decided to cash in on that market. The companies reject Mexico's allegations, arguing the country's lawsuit comes nowhere close to showing they're responsible for a relatively few people using their products to commit violence. The trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation applauded the ruling, adding that gunmakers work with U.S. authorities to prevent gun trafficking. 'This is a tremendous victory for the firearm industry and the rule of law,' said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel. A federal judge tossed out the lawsuit under a 2005 law that protects gun companies from most civil lawsuits, but an appeals court revived it. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston found it fell under an exception to the shield law for situations in which firearm companies are accused of knowingly breaking laws in their business practices. That exception has come up in other cases, including in lawsuits stemming from mass shootings. Families of victims of the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, for example, argued it applied to their lawsuit because the gunmaker had violated state law in the marketing of the AR-15 rifle used in the shooting, in which 20 first graders and six educators were killed. The families eventually secured a landmark $73 million settlement with Remington, the maker of the rifle. The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't appear to affect similar cases, said David Pucino, legal director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. 'All survivors, in the United States, in Mexico, and anywhere else, deserve their day in court, and we will continue to support them in their fight for justice,' he said. Read the original article on MassLive.
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
High court blocks Hamas victims' try to reopen case against Lebanese bank
WASHINGTON, June 5 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled unanimously that it would not allow relatives of victims and survivors of Hamas attacks from 2001 to 2003 to reopen a case in which they accused a Lebanese bank of providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court ruled in BLOM Bank SAL vs. Michal Honickman, in an opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, that the plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of extraordinary circumstances for reopening the case. When the case was originally tried in 2019, the relatives and victims lost because they failed to prove the bank knowingly took on clients affiliated with Hamas. The victims and relatives then wanted to offer evidence to which they claimed they had access later. They cited as precedent Rule 60(b), which outlines the reasons why a case could be reopened after a judgement has been issued, such as a mistake in the judgement or evidence unavailable to the plaintiffs during their original case. "It is Rule 60(b)'s standard -- and only Rule 60(b0's standard -- that applies when a party seeks relief from final judgement. A party seeking Rule 60(b) relief must always demonstrate 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying relief," the court wrote. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion in which she parted from her colleagues, warning that courts should not deny requests to reopen cases simply because the requesting party was given a chance to amend a case while it was ongoing. "In particular, I think the district court was wrong to fault plaintiffs for making a 'deliberate choice' to appeal the dismissal of their complaint in lieu of accepting various pre-dismissal opportunities to cure purported pleading deficiencies." Brown wrote. The victims and families accused the Lebanese bank of aiding and abetting attacks from 2001 to 2003 by providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. In 2019, the families attempted to sue the bank, but the judge dismissed the suit for not providing evidence that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated clients. The court even asked the survivors and families' lawyer if they wanted to amend the case, but they declined. They later found evidence they said proves that the bank knowingly engaged with Hamas affiliates, so they went back to court to reopen their case. Their lawyer, Michael Radine, criticized the Supreme Court's decision. Radine said in a statement to UPI that the district court would not allow his clients to retry the case unless they could meet "the erroneous and essentially unmeetable pleading standards raised by the defendant and adopted by the district court." He added that the district court required evidence such as acts or statements from bank employees proving affiliations with Hamas before discovery. "Few plaintiffs will have access to a defendant's internal communications before discovery, which is why the [2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals] tossed that pleading standard as 'too exacting,'" Radine said in the statement. During the original case, the families appealed to the 2nd Circuit and were turned down again, so they returned to the lower courts and asked to retry the case and submit evidence proving that the bank knowingly provided financial services to Hamas-affiliated individuals. They were told their case did not meet the requirement to be reopened, so the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 2nd Circuit again. "Indeed, today's decision could empower district courts to prevent plaintiffs from amending their complaints whenever the state of the applicable law is unclear," Radine said. BLOM Bank SAL's lawyer Michael Hugh McGinley didn't respond to a request for comment.
