Judge rejects journalists' bid to witness Indiana executions while lawsuit proceeds

Indianapolis Star

18-05-2025

EVANSVILLE — A federal judge declined to force Indiana prison officials to let journalists witness executions while a lawsuit brought by several news organizations proceeds.
Judge Matthew P. Brookman, of the Southern District of Indiana, denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that they were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that reporters have a First Amendment right to witness executions.
The ruling, issued late Friday, comes just before the scheduled execution of Benjamin Ritchie on Tuesday. He was sentenced to death by lethal injection for the murder of a Beech Grove police officer in 2002.
Gov. Mike Braun previously declined to halt Ritchie's execution, writing in a letter to the Indiana Parole Board that his office determined Ritchie's request for clemency "does not rise to the level of requiring a commutation of his death sentence."
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed suit against Indiana's top state prison officials on behalf of the five news organizations May 5. The suit seeks to overturn a state statute and Indiana State Prison policy restricting journalists' ability to witness executions first hand.
Indiana is one of just two death-penalty states to not afford reporters access to observe executions. Wyoming, the only other state with such a rule, has not carried out the death penalty since 1992, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
Under the Indiana State Prison's current policy, it is effectively up to the condemned person to decide whether journalists witness their execution. They are permitted five witnesses — which may include family, friends and media — but journalists are otherwise barred from attending the proceedings.
The plaintiffs — including Gannett, which owns IndyStar, the Courier & Press and several other Indiana publications — argue the policy violates the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press and hinders the public's ability to understand a life-or-death issue.
Lin Weeks, a senior staff attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, argued during a hearing Friday that Indiana was "uniquely restrictive" in how it handles press access to executions.
"There's an importance in allowing the public to see that justice is carried out," Weeks said.
In their motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs asserted that reporters should be granted access to witness Ritchie's execution and any other death sentences carried out while the case is litigated.
"The balance of equities favors granting preliminary relief because 'injunctions protecting First Amendment freedoms are always in the public interest,'" the motion states.
Brookman determined that however restrictive Indiana may be in how it carries out executions, state law "treats members of the press the same as members of the public at large."
"They are not being singled out for disparate treatment, even though Indiana law permits physicians and spiritual advisors to attend executions," Brookman wrote in his order.
Clay Calvert, a First Amendment scholar and nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has no affiliation with the plaintiffs, said Indiana's practice of not reserving seats for reporters shields executions from public scrutiny.
"The First Amendment should protect journalists' ability to be physically present and watch an execution from the moment an individual enters the chamber through and until the individual dies," Calvert said in an interview prior to Brookman's ruling. "That's because journalists, in this case, serve as proxies and surrogates for members of the public who cannot all be physically present."
The defendants — Indiana State Prison Warden Ron Neal and Indiana Department of Correction Commissioner Lloyd Arnold — urged Brookman to deny the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction on several grounds, asserting that journalists have no more right than the general public to witness an execution.
In the state's view, it's no different than when a reporter visits someone who is incarcerated at an Indiana prison: Access is tightly controlled, can be restricted, and is at the discretion of both the inmate and prison officials.
"There's simply no right to witness an execution," Special Counsel Jefferson S. Garn, of the Indiana Attorney General's office, said Friday.
Garn argued that having to adapt the "highly coordinated operation" days before Ritchie's execution places an undue burden on the state. Appearing in court remotely from his office at the Indiana State Prison, Neal testified that allowing journalists to attend could "force us to substantially change policies."
The state also took issue with the notion that reporters are barred outright from witnessing executions in Indiana.
Indiana State Prison policy states that "media personnel shall not be permitted to witness the execution or to be in the execution chamber" — unless the condemned person invites a journalist as one of five friends and family they choose as a witness.
"Indiana code treats members of the press the same as members of the public," Garn told the court.
Brookman appeared receptive to the argument, writing in his order that "members of the media can attend (executions) the same way that members of the public can."
The state argued the timing of the lawsuit was reason enough to oppose a preliminary injunction.
The Indiana law at issue has remained unchanged for years, Garn said, but the plaintiffs filed suit less than one month before Ritchie's scheduled execution, leaving the state and the court just days to craft new procedures that would allow for journalists to serve as witnesses.
"They knew this execution was going to be scheduled even in September," Garn said. "To ask the department to make changes at the last minute should be denied."
In their complaint arguing that journalists should be afforded greater access, the plaintiffs cited the 1985 execution of William Vandiver by electrocution. Because no reporters were present in the death chamber, news outlets relied on conflicting testimony from prison officials and Vandiver's attorney to piece together what happened during the 17 minutes it took to put Vandiver to death.
A prison doctor described the ordeal in plain terms, saying that after an initial application of 2,300 volts, the electrical current "was applied three more times before (Vandiver) was pronounced dead 17 minutes later."
A Department of Corrections spokesperson admitted the execution "did not go according to plan" but disclosed few other details. Vandiver's attorney said the process was "outrageous," the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote in the complaint.
Ted Bridis, a former AP reporter who witnessed executions in Kentucky and Oklahoma as a news media observer, likewise pointed to Vandiver's case to illustrate the value journalists can afford the public when they serve as eyewitnesses.
"This is the ultimate use of force by the government," said Bridis, who now teaches journalism at the University of Florida. "We need to be there as independent observers, as representatives of the public and our readers and viewers and listeners, to make sure they understand exactly what happens in these cases."
Earlier this month, a U.S. District Court judge in Idaho ordered state officials there to grant media witnesses "audio and visual access" to view the preparation and administration of lethal drugs during executions after the AP and two Idaho newspapers filed suit.
In her order, Judge Debora K. Grasham wrote that reporters' ability to witness every step of the execution process "concerns the public's First Amendment right of access" to what is "the most severe penalty enforced by our state."
In Indiana, attorneys for the state took issue with the notion that journalists have any role to play in ensuring executions are carried out in accordance with the Constitution.
"(The plaintiffs) argue that the press serves an important role in the 'proper functioning' of executions in ensuring that they comport with the Eighth Amendment, i.e., it isn't cruel and unusual," they wrote. "This argument is misguided..."
Garn said prison officials, including a specially trained execution team and an on-site physician, are responsible for ensuring executions are carried out in a humane manner, not journalists.