In light of the botched execution on February 22, 2018, counsel for Doyle Hamm has amended the §1983 complaint to raise new claims about the unconstitutionality of any other attempted execution, under double jeopardy principles, but also to raise a compelling question under the Baze/Glossip standard: even if there exists no statutorily authorized alternative under the Baze/Glossip standard, Alabama should nonetheless be barred from carrying out his execution if Doyle has shown that the state’s proposed method of execution (IV injection) poses an unconstitutional risk of serious harm, as applied to him. To hold otherwise raises precisely what Justice Sotomayor referred to as “an alarming misreading of Baze.” The second amended complaint is here:
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 