Louisiana carries out state's first nitrogen hypoxia execution
March 19 (UPI) -- Louisiana has carried out its first nitrogen hypoxia execution and its first execution in 15 years, killing Jessie Hoffman Jr. on Tuesday night for the 1996 kidnapping, rape and murder of a 28-year-old woman.
Hoffman was executed at the West Feliciana Parish Coroner's Office and was pronounced dead at about 6:50 p.m. CDT, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections told UPI in an emailed statement.
He was convicted in 1997 for killing Mary Margaret "Molly" Elliot in St. Tammany Parish, La., in November of the previous year.
LDPSC Secretary Gary Westcott told reporters in a press conference that followed the execution that Hoffman declined a final meal and a last statement.
Hoffman was visited throughout the day by his family, spiritual advisor and attorney, Westcott said.
At 6:12 p.m., Hoffman was escorted to the execution chamber, positioned on the gurney and had the mask set in place over his face.
Westcott said the nitrogen flowed for 19 minutes, starting a 6:21 p.m.
"Tonight, justice was served for Molly Elliot and for the State of Louisiana," Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill said during the press conference while holding up an enlarged wedding photo of Hoffman's victim.
Elliot's naked body was found by a duck hunter on a dock by the Middle Pearl River in St. Tammany Parish on Nov. 28, 1996, which was Thanksgiving Day.
During the trial, evidence showed that Hoffman had kidnapped Elliot at gunpoint in her own car from a parking garage near where he worked, according to court documents.
He forced her to drive to an ATM to withdraw money. Elliot then, under gunpoint, drove to a remote area of St. Tammany Parish, where he raped her.
The court documents state she was still naked when Hoffman marched her down a dirt path to the makeshift dock where she was forced to kneel and then shot in the head.
She likely survived for a few minutes before succumbing to her injuries in the cold November night, the documents state.
Hoffman's death comes as the state has sought to resume executions.
Last year, the Louisiana Congress passed legislation to include the use of nitrogen hypoxia to conduct death sentences. On Feb. 10, Gov. Jeff Landry said the state had finalized and implemented its updated protocol for the highly controversial method of nitrogen hypoxia, which deprives the brain of oxygen by forcing inmates to breathe nitrogen.
Hoffman is the first person in Louisiana to be executed in this manner.
Only four other death row inmates in the United States -- all in Alabama -- have been executed with this method since it was used to kill Kenneth Eugene Smith in Alabama in January 2024.
Another inmate, Christopher Sepulvado, 81, was supposed to be Louisiana's first nitrogen hypoxia execution, which was scheduled for Monday, but he died on death row late last month.
Hoffman's execution is also the first in Louisiana since Gerald Bordelon, 47, was executed on Jan. 7, 2010.
During the Tuesday night press conference, Murrill said she and Landry made a promise to the people of Louisiana and the families of murder victims that they would "put them first and that we would follow the law."
"Justice has been delayed for these victims and their families for far too long, she said. "I, along with my office, remain committed to ensuring that justice is carried out in all the death penalty cases.
"Jessie Hoffman was convicted and sentenced to death by a jury for his heinous crimes. He received multiple appeals, he received even more appeals and review in the last several days. Now he faces his ultimate judgment before God."
On Tuesday, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed legislation making her state the fifth to approve the use of nitrogen gas to perform executions.
Hoffman is the seventh person to be executed in the United States this year, and the second by nitrogen hypoxia.
Earlier this month, Brad Keith Sigmon was executed in South Carolina by firing squad, the first time that method has been used to carry out a death sentence in the United States in 15 years.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
United States seizes $7.44 million in North Korean crypto scam
June 5 (UPI) -- The Justice Department has seized more than $7.74 million dollars related to an illegal employment and cryptocurrency scheme operated by North Korea, officials announced Thursday. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District court in Washington, alleges that IT workers were illegally hired and collected cryptocurrency for the North Korean government as a way to avoid sanctions imposed by the United States. "This forfeiture action highlights, once again, the North Korean government's exploitation of the cryptocurrency ecosystem to fund its illicit priorities," Matthew R. Galeoti, director of the Justice Department's criminal division, said in a release. "The department will use every legal tool at its disposal to safeguard the cryptocurrency ecosystems and deny North Korea all its ill-gotten gains in violation of U.S. sanctions." The Justice Department said North Korean workers used false identities to obtain employment with U.S.-based companies, often remotely, as a way to avoid sanctions and illegally obtained cryptocurrency, which they then sent back to North Korea. "Those IT workers have generated revenue for North Korea via their jobs at, among other places, blockchain development companies," the Justice Department release continued. To send the cryptocurrency to North Korea, the IT workers allegedly laundered it by setting up accounts with fictitious names, sending funds in small amounts, converting funds or moving them to other blockchains or converting them to other forms of currency. They also allegedly commingled their funds with other money to hide their origins. Earlier this year, the FBI issued guidelines on how to recognize extortion and theft of sensitive company data, and offered rules on how to address it.
Yahoo
15 hours 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.
UPI
15 hours 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.
