{"id":431,"date":"2018-03-05T18:37:59","date_gmt":"2018-03-05T23:37:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/?p=431"},"modified":"2018-03-05T18:38:00","modified_gmt":"2018-03-05T23:38:00","slug":"doyle-hamm-files-second-amended-complaint","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/2018\/03\/05\/doyle-hamm-files-second-amended-complaint\/","title":{"rendered":"Doyle Hamm Files Second Amended Complaint"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In light of the botched execution on February 22, 2018, counsel for Doyle Hamm has amended the \u00a71983 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\u00a0<em>Baze\/Glossip<\/em> standard: even if there exists no statutorily authorized\u00a0alternative under the <em>Baze\/Glossip<\/em> standard, Alabama should nonetheless be barred\u00a0from carrying out his execution if Doyle has shown that the state\u2019s proposed method of\u00a0execution (IV injection) poses an unconstitutional risk of serious harm, as applied to him. To hold otherwise raises precisely what Justice Sotomayor referred to as &#8220;an alarming\u00a0misreading of Baze.\u201d The second amended complaint is here:<\/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%2F03%2F94-1-Hamm-Second-Amended-Complaint-STAMPED.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\/03\/94-1-Hamm-Second-Amended-Complaint-STAMPED.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\/03\/94-1-Hamm-Second-Amended-Complaint-STAMPED.pdf\" download>Download [3.27 MB] <\/a><\/p><\/div>\n<p style=\"text-align: center\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/2018\/03\/05\/doyle-hamm-files-second-amended-complaint\/photo-1-lower-extremities\/\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-433\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-433\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/files\/2018\/03\/Photo-1-Lower-Extremities-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" srcset=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/files\/2018\/03\/Photo-1-Lower-Extremities-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/files\/2018\/03\/Photo-1-Lower-Extremities-768x512.jpg 768w, https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/files\/2018\/03\/Photo-1-Lower-Extremities.jpg 900w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In light of the botched execution on February 22, 2018, counsel for Doyle Hamm has amended the \u00a71983 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\u00a0Baze\/Glossip standard: even if there exists no statutorily authorized\u00a0alternative under the Baze\/Glossip [&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-431","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\/431","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=431"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/431\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}