Louisiana, Arizona end pauses on capital punishment as 3 executions set for March
Louisiana, Arizona end pauses on capital punishment as 3 executions set for March
Three states have scheduled executions in March, including one eyeing a controversial nitrogen gas method in order to carry it out and another state that struggled to insert IVs into three separate inmates during their lethal injections.
Louisiana's execution of Christopher Sepulvado on March 17 would mark the end of a 15-year break in executions in the state, which plans to use nitrogen gas. Arizona's execution of Aaron Gunches on March 19 would be the first in the state since 2022, when the state struggled to carry out three executions.
Meanwhile South Carolina is set to execute its fourth inmate since September, when the state reinstated the practice after a 13-year pause.
"The resumption of executions in states which have not killed prisoners in over a decade is a troubling last gasp for the death penalty in the United States," Abraham Bonowitz, executive director of Death Penalty Action, told USA TODAY on Wednesday. "Killing old men decades after their crimes does not make us safer, nor does it bring back the victims in these cases."
Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry said in a statement Monday that "justice will be dispensed."
'For too long, Louisiana has failed to uphold the promises made to victims of our State's most violent crimes," he said. "I anticipate the national press will embellish on the feelings and interests of the violent death row murderers, we will continue to advocate for the innocent victims and the loved ones left behind."
So far this year, the U.S. has executed three inmates, with two more scheduled to die and on Thursday and at least 12 more by the end of the year. Here's what to know about the newly scheduled executions.
Louisiana ends prohibition on death penalty
A De Soto Parish judge granted a death warrant Tuesday for 81-year-old Christopher Sepulvado to be executed on March 17 for the murder of his 6-year-old stepson in 1993.
Attorney General Liz Murrill told The Associated Press that the state will use nitrogen gas and expects to execute four inmates this year.
The Rev. Jeff Hood, a spiritual advisor for Death Row inmates and anti-death penalty activist, was a witness to the first nitrogen gas execution in the United States − that of Kenny Eugene Smith on Jan. 25, 2024 − and described it as being "horrific."
"Kenny was shaking the entire gurney. I had never seen something so violent," Hood wrote in a column for USA TODAY following the execution of Kenneth Smith. "There was nothing in his body that was calm. Everything was going everywhere all at once, over and over."
Sepulvado's attorney, Shawn Nolan, told KTBS-TV that the inmate is in poor health and confined to a wheelchair.
"Chris Sepulvado is a debilitated old man suffering from serious medical ailments," he said. "There is no conceivable reason why 'justice' might be served by executing Chris instead of letting him live out his few remaining days in prison."
Arizona to restart executions after review
The Arizona State Supreme Court granted a warrant of execution for Aaron Gunches on Tuesday, setting the first execution in the state in more than two years for March 19, reported The Arizona Republic − a part of the USA TODAY Network.
Gunches was sentenced to death for the 2002 murder of Ted Price, a former longtime boyfriend of Gunches' girlfriend. Gunches has advocated for his execution, and the state's Supreme Court previously granted a death warrant for him in 2023 that was not completed when Democratic state leadership paused executions upon taking office.
Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes suspended capital punishment pending a review of Arizona's death penalty process because the state struggled to insert IVs for three lethal injection executions in 2022: those of Clarence Dixon, Frank Atwood and Murray Hooper.
Dixon's attorneys said it took 40 minutes to insert IVs. Dixon's execution team resorted to inserting an IV line into his femoral vein, which caused him to experience pain and resulted in a "fair amount of blood," according to Associated Press reporter Paul Davenport, who witnessed the execution.
The execution team for Atwood also struggled to insert IVs, prompting technicians to consider the femoral vein, as well. However, Atwood asked the team to try his arms again, eventually guiding them to insert the line into one of his hands successfully.
During Hooper's execution, he turned and asked the viewing gallery, 'Can you believe this?' as the execution team tried and failed repeatedly to insert IVs into his arms before inserting a catheter into his femoral vein.
Hobbs ended the review process late last year, and Mayes announced she was pursuing the execution of Gunches.
State officials have said there will now be additional members on the execution team, including a phlebotomist. During previous executions, the IV team was sometimes staffed with corrections officers.
South Carolina to execute fourth person in five months
Meanwhile the South Carolina Supreme Court on Friday scheduled a March 7 execution date for Brad Sigmon for the 2001 murder of a couple and the kidnapping of their daughter, according to the Greenville News − a part of the USA TODAY Network.
Sigmon would be the fourth man executed by the state since September if the execution is completed, following Freddie 'Khalil' Owens, Richard Moore and Marion Bowman last month.
Lawyers representing Sigmon, 67, filed a motion last week to stay Sigmon's executionafter reviewing Moore's autopsy.
According to the motion, the previous three men remained alive for 20 minutes after receiving a dose of pentobarbital, and Moore had to be injected a second time.
'This raises grave concerns: that during all three of SCDC's recent executions, the drugs were either not properly administered, not reliable and effective, or all of the above,' according to the motion.
USA TODAY reached out to the South Carolina Department of Corrections for a response.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge largely declines to block Florida law restricting ballot-initiative drives
A federal judge on Wednesday largely denied a request from petition groups to block parts of a Florida law that changes how citizen-led amendments make it to the ballot. In passing the law earlier this year, Gov. Ron DeSantis and the bill's Republican sponsors said the petition process needed reform because it is riddled with fraud. But groups like Florida Decides Healthcare, which is trying to get an amendment that will expand Medicaid access on 2026 ballots, quickly sued, saying the new law stifles people's ability to use the petition process. Other groups, including the recreational marijuana campaign Smart & Safe Florida, joined the lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Mark Walker largely denied the plaintiffs' request to block three sections of the new law. Plaintiffs had asked Walker to temporarily block a requirement that campaigns turn in all petitions within 10 days to county elections offices. They also contested changes that increased fines for organizations that turn in petitions late and that added new criminal penalties for filling in missing voter information. The plaintiffs argued that the law violates the First Amendment right to engage in political speech. But Walker, who was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, said court precedent makes clear that the initiative process doesn't have to be the most user-friendly version possible. Walker said the challenging groups hadn't yet proven they were 'severely burdened' by the new law's requirement to turn petitions in within 10 days and the increased late fines. Instead, he said, 'the record shows that these provisions simply make the process of getting their proposed initiatives on the ballot more expensive and less efficient for Plaintiffs.' The marijuana and Medicaid expansion campaigns have said they've been affected by slowed petition collection and discouraged volunteers since the law took effect in early May. The groups hoping to qualify for the 2026 ballot need about 900,000 verified petitions by early next year. Out of all the groups' asks, Walker granted only one plaintiff an injunction on one point. Jordan Simmons, a project director for the Medicaid expansion group, challenged part of the law that includes election code violations for petition fraud in the racketeering statute. Walker sided with Simmons' argument that the racketeering law change was too vague. Despite Walker rejecting most of the Medicaid expansion groups' asks, Mitch Emerson, a spokesperson for Florida Decides Healthcare, called the ruling a 'major victory.' 'While the Court did not grant every part of our motion for preliminary relief, this is far from the final word,' Emerson said in a statement. 'This ruling was an early, extraordinary step in the legal process—and we are optimistic about what comes next, both for the remaining parts of HB 1205 that we're challenging and for the future of citizen-led democracy in Florida.' Groups have for years used Florida's ballot initiative process as a way to pass changes to the state constitution that lawmakers have refused to put forward. Through petition collection, groups have gotten voters to approve things like medical marijuana, felon voter restoration and a $15 minimum wage. Last year, DeSantis used the power of his administration to successfully oppose two amendments put on the ballot through the petition process: the recreational pot amendment and one that would have protected abortion access. Months after both those measures failed, DeSantis' office suggested a draft bill that would have made petition collection virtually impossible. During the injunction hearing in May, Glenn Burhans, an attorney for Smart & Safe Florida — which sponsored a failed 2024 ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana and is hoping to get a similar amendment on 2026 ballots — said that he thought lawmakers passed the petition change bill because the marijuana measure 'is very popular.' The challenge to the new law is ongoing, and the amendment groups are seeking to block other provisions of the law in another request for a temporary injunction.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration ramps up attack on Harvard, Columbia
President Donald Trump ramped up his campaign against top US universities Wednesday, banning visas for all foreign students coming to attend Harvard and threatening to strip Columbia of its academic accreditation. Trump is seeking to bring the universities to heel with claims their international students pose a national security threat, and that they ignored anti-Semitism on campus, and perpetuate liberal bias. A proclamation issued by the White House late Wednesday declared that the entrance of international students to begin a course at Harvard would be "suspended and limited" for six months, and that existing overseas enrollees could have their visas terminated. "Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers," said the order. "I'm trembling. This is outrageous," Karl Molden, a Harvard government and classics student from Austria, told AFP. "He is abusing his executive power to harm Harvard as much as he can." "My god!" said another international student at Harvard, who declined to be named for fear of retribution, on learning of the executive order. "This is such a disgrace." - 'Retaliatory' - The announcement came after the Trump administration's earlier efforts to terminate Harvard's right to enroll and host foreign students were stalled by a judge. The government already cut around $3.2 billion of federal grants and contracts benefiting Harvard and pledged to exclude the Cambridge, Massachusetts institution from any future federal funding. Harvard has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign against top universities after it defied his calls to submit to oversight of its curriculum, staffing, student recruitment and "viewpoint diversity." Trump has also singled out international students at Harvard, who in the 2024-2025 academic year accounted for 27 percent of total enrollment, and a major source of income. "This is yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the Administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights," a university spokesman said. "Harvard will continue to protect its international students." The latest sweeping action against Harvard came as Trump's education secretary threatened Wednesday to strip Columbia University of its accreditation. The Republican has targeted the New York Ivy League institution for allegedly ignoring harassment of Jewish students, throwing all of its federal funding into doubt. Unlike Harvard, several top institutions -- including Columbia -- have already bowed to far-reaching demands from the Trump administration, which claims that the educational elite is too left-wing. - 'Combating anti-Semitism' - But Wednesday's official action suggested it was not enough for Trump. "Columbia University looked the other way as Jewish students faced harassment," US Education Secretary Linda McMahon said on X. She accused the school of breaking rules prohibiting recipients of federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. "After Hamas' October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel, Columbia University's leadership acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students on its campus," McMahon said in a statement. "This is not only immoral, but also unlawful." In the statement, the US Education Department said its civil rights office had contacted Columbia's accreditation body about the alleged violation. Withdrawing Columbia's accreditation would see it lose access to all federal funding -- a very significant proportion of the university's income. Students attending the university would also not be able to receive federal grants and loans towards tuition. Critics accuse the Trump administration of using allegations of anti-Semitism to target educational elites and bring universities to their knees. The administration has already put $400 million of Columbia's funding under review, prompting the university in March to announce a package of concessions to the government around defining anti-Semitism, policing protests and conducting oversight for specific academic departments. Following Wednesday's announcement, a Columbia spokesperson said the university "aware of the concerns" raised by the government with its accreditation body. "We have addressed those concerns directly with Middle States," the spokesperson said, adding that "Columbia is deeply committed to combating anti-Semitism on our campus." "We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it." bur-gw/st
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Faces Shocking Threat to His Presidency From ‘Brutus' Musk
Et tu, Elon? As he considers how to mitigate the damage from his fallout with Elon Musk, Donald Trump would be well-advised to examine the origins of Tesla, the company most closely associated with the world's richest man and the main source of his enormous wealth. Tesla Motors, as it was originally known, was founded on July 1, 2003, by software engineers Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in San Carlos, California. Their dream was to build a cool electric roadster to replace the clunky, battery-bleeding, glorified golf carts being produced by established automakers. The Tesla founders bootstrapped their debut prototype before launching their first investment round in February 2004. At around this time, Elon Musk, with pockets full of cash from the sales of PayPal and Zip2, was looking for new projects to invest in and was intrigued by Tesla. He coughed up $6.5 million of the $7.5 million raised. Musk wasn't a founder, but he bought his way into the car business. His wealth was also sufficient to secure him the position of Tesla's chairman of the board. It wasn't long before he took the company for his own. By late 2007, Eberhard had been ousted as CEO. Tarpenning left a little while later. Musk, the new CEO, took the Model S, Model X, and Model 3 to the well-heeled masses—and to massive success. He also left anger and acrimony in his wake. Eberhard would later sue for defamation and wrongful termination. Fast forward to early 2024, and Musk was ambivalent about Trump's presidential re-election ambitions, announcing in March that he wouldn't be donating to either party. It wasn't until the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, that July that he changed his mind. Minutes after Trump was bundled from the stage by Secret Service agents with blood pouring from an ear wound and his clenched fist aloft, Musk endorsed the Republican nominee. Even more importantly, he committed $45 million to a mega Trump fundraiser, America PAC. By August, Musk was suggesting that Trump should put him in charge of a commission based on 'government efficiency.' The idea of DOGE was born, and Musk declared himself 'willing to serve.' In October, the Tesla boss shared the stage with Trump on his return to Butler and leaped up and down, saying he was 'dark MAGA' to the discomfort of the nominee and his advisors. If Trump had any reservations, he was appeased by Musk's offer to pay $1 million a day to voters supporting him in swing states. Musk was fully immersed in Trump's final campaign rundown and was at Mar-a-Lago to watch the results. The 'First Buddy' began spending almost every day with the president-elect. There was so much talk of 'President Musk' in December that Trump felt bound to come out and insist: 'No, he's not taking the presidency. That's not happening.' The whispers out of the White House after the inauguration suggested that all was not well with the relationship. Musk wasn't so happy to be Robin to Trump's Batman anymore. Not a dynamic duo. He saw himself more in the mold of a genius inventor and playboy like "Iron Man" Tony Stark. There were reports of flare-ups with Cabinet members, Musk going rogue with flurries of posts on his X platform, bitchy feuds with the likes of Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, and Musk being omnipresent at the White House, bringing son X into the Oval Office, dumping USAID into the 'wood chipper' and going full chainsaw on entire federal departments. To his obvious bemusement, Musk was no longer the hero. Worse, he was the villain people loved to hate. He was Doctor Doom. And his Teslas took the brunt of his unpopularity. For a time, it served Trump to have Musk as the focus of criticism of the shock and awe launch of his second term. Meanwhile, Musk was smart enough to know that his privileged position at the heart of power meant he had to toe the line, at least some of the time. When the House passed Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill,' Musk tempered his reactions at first. But when he realized how his Oval Office Bro had fully jettisoned Biden's clean air tax credits, he lost his cool. Two weeks later, with Musk's ties to the White House officially cut, he felt no such inhibition. Eliminating the clean air tax credits would pummel his Tesla and SpaceX businesses. Make no mistake, Trump's entire agenda relies on the passage of this bill. But when he's being drowned out by Musk's bullhorn, it's more difficult to herd his sheep down the Hill. Trump can talk as often and as loudly as he likes from his Oval Office pulpit, but rhetoric and executive orders can only take you so far. This is still a country built on laws, even if some judicial foundations seem rattled and shaky right now. Trump can bully lawmakers behind the scenes, threatening pop-up primaries for disobedience and disloyalty. But so can Musk. He already did. The midterms may be a year and a half away, but they will determine Trump's legacy. Trump could continue operating as the Republicans' all-powerful Caesar, or he could serve out his time as a lame duck leader with the knives out for him in every direction, blue states and red. Trump's silence over Musk's explosive challenge to his spending bill suggests he is, for once, thinking very carefully about his next move. So far, he has chosen to keep Musk on his side of the sandbox, even as he pushes him away. The president is no fool. He knows it is better to keep a Brutus close, but that leaves him with a quandary. Will Trump finally stick the knife into Musk and leave him for dead? Or will it be the other way around?
