{"id":358,"date":"2018-02-22T03:09:07","date_gmt":"2018-02-22T08:09:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/?p=358"},"modified":"2018-02-22T03:09:07","modified_gmt":"2018-02-22T08:09:07","slug":"alabama-dismisses-eleventh-circuit-yeah-sure-dude-we-can-do-that","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/2018\/02\/22\/alabama-dismisses-eleventh-circuit-yeah-sure-dude-we-can-do-that\/","title":{"rendered":"ALABAMA DISMISSES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT:  &#8220;YEAH, SURE, DUDE, WE CAN DO THAT! &#8220;"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In a highly dismissive pleading filed late afternoon February 21, 2018, the state of Alabama basically told the Eleventh Circuit that they could go fly a kite: \u00a0&#8220;Yeah, sure, buddy, we can do this!&#8221; It was a surprising slap in the face of the Eleventh Circuit.<\/p>\n<p>So, for instance, the court had asked the State of Alabama to verify that it would have a doctor conduct the IV access, particularly for central venous access. \u00a0Well,\u00a0the Warden of Holman Prison submitted an affidavit in response to the Eleventh Circuit stating that \u201cthe ADOC will have an MD present during Mr. Hamm\u2019s execution,\u201d at \u00b65. Of course, a\u00a0doctor is always \u201cpresent\u201d at the execution, in order to pronounce death, but never in the execution chamber during the execution! The Warden was clearly misleading the Eleventh Circuit, which was actually trying to get the state to promise that a doctor would conduct the IV insertion! In all likelihood, naturally, the Warden will get away with it, and succeed in pulling the wool over the Eleventh Circuit&#8217;s eyes. And of course, no opportunity for Doyle Hamm to correct that!<\/p>\n<p>Justice, Alabama style. If counsel for Doyle Hamm ever did that, we&#8217;d probably be held in contempt!<\/p>\n<p>Here is the Attorney General&#8217;s pleading, showing utter contempt for the Eleventh Circuit:<\/p>\n<div class=\"ead-preview\"><div class=\"ead-document\" style=\"position: relative;padding-top: 90%;\"><div class=\"ead-iframe-wrapper\"><iframe src=\"\/\/docs.google.com\/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.law.columbia.edu%2Fupdate-hamm-v-alabama%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F02%2F175-Alabama-Affidavit-to-11th-Circuit.pdf&amp;embedded=true&amp;hl=en\" title=\"Embedded Document\" class=\"ead-iframe\" style=\"width: 100%;height: 100%;border: none;position: absolute;left: 0;top: 0;visibility: hidden;\"><\/iframe><\/div>\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-document-loading\" style=\"width:100%;height:100%;position:absolute;left:0;top:0;z-index:10;\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading-wrap\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading-main\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-content\/plugins\/embed-any-document\/images\/loading.svg\" width=\"55\" height=\"55\" alt=\"Loader\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span>Loading...<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading-foot\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading-foot-title\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-content\/plugins\/embed-any-document\/images\/EAD-logo.svg\" alt=\"EAD Logo\" width=\"36\" height=\"23\"\/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span>Taking too long?<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-document-btn ead-reload-btn\" role=\"button\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-content\/plugins\/embed-any-document\/images\/reload.svg\" alt=\"Reload\" width=\"12\" height=\"12\"\/> Reload document\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span>|<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/files\/2018\/02\/175-Alabama-Affidavit-to-11th-Circuit.pdf\" class=\"ead-document-btn\" target=\"_blank\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-content\/plugins\/embed-any-document\/images\/open.svg\" alt=\"Open\" width=\"12\" height=\"12\"\/> Open in new tab\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div><p class=\"embed_download\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/files\/2018\/02\/175-Alabama-Affidavit-to-11th-Circuit.pdf\" download>Download [794.66 KB] <\/a><\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a highly dismissive pleading filed late afternoon February 21, 2018, the state of Alabama basically told the Eleventh Circuit that they could go fly a kite: \u00a0&#8220;Yeah, sure, buddy, we can do this!&#8221; It was a surprising slap in the face of the Eleventh Circuit. So, for instance, the court had asked the State [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1641,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-358","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-uncategorized","7":"czr-hentry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/358","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1641"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/358\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}