Latest / Bloomberg Law / Justice Alito & Botched Tennessee Execution

Transcript

Justice Alito & Botched Tennessee Execution · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 1: Justice Samuel Alito has been on the Supreme Court for
0:13
Speaker 1: 21 years. He's one of the two most conservative members
0:16
Speaker 1: of the court, best known for writing the majority opinion
0:20
Speaker 1: in the case that overturned the constitutional right to abortion.
0:24
Speaker 1: He's also written major opinions cutting back the Voting Rights Act,
0:29
Speaker 1: curtailing the power of labor unions. bolstering religious freedoms and
0:34
Speaker 1: expanding gun rights. Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Stohr had
0:38
Speaker 1: a wide-ranging interview with Alito about his new book, So Ordered. Greg,
0:44
Speaker 1: so you asked him the question that's been on everyone's
0:47
Speaker 1: mind for a while. Is he retiring?
0:50
Speaker 2: Jim, what he told me is that he is not
0:53
Speaker 2: going to retire in response to a Democratic takeover of
0:56
Speaker 2: the Senate in the November midterm if that happens. There
0:59
Speaker 2: has been a lot of speculation that either he or
1:03
Speaker 2: Justice Thomas might do that because that would be a
1:07
Speaker 2: way that Donald Trump could appoint and get confirmed a
1:10
Speaker 2: successor who could serve for another 20 or 30 years.
1:14
Speaker 2: But the justice said he is not going to do that.
1:16
Speaker 2: It was a pretty Sherman-esque statement.
1:18
Speaker 1: So then the Senate would have to push it through
1:21
Speaker 1: before the new Senate is sworn in. Is it even
1:25
Speaker 1: possible for them? I guess Mitch McConnell did it. With
1:29
Speaker 1: Amy Coney Barrett, so I guess it is doable.
1:32
Speaker 2: Senator Thune, the majority leader, said it could be done.
1:35
Speaker 2: And yes, you're exactly right that they pushed through Amy
1:37
Speaker 2: Coney Barrett in a very short period of time. So
1:41
Speaker 2: it was doable. And, you know, you have to imagine
1:43
Speaker 2: that they would absolutely try.
1:45
Speaker 1: And why did he decide to put out this book
1:47
Speaker 1: at this particular time?
1:49
Speaker 2: So what he said was it actually happened by chance
1:52
Speaker 2: because he was talking to an editor who ended up
1:54
Speaker 2: being the editor of the book who he met at
1:56
Speaker 2: an event. And the editor pitched the idea and he
1:59
Speaker 2: started thinking about it. And he said he decided he
2:03
Speaker 2: wanted to sort of bring some things together that he
2:05
Speaker 2: hadn't brought together. How he interprets the Constitution, how he
2:08
Speaker 2: interprets federal statutes, what he thinks the role of a
2:11
Speaker 2: judge should be, and some more specific stuff on things
2:15
Speaker 2: like religious freedom.
2:16
Speaker 1: Are these all his speeches or is there new content?
2:19
Speaker 2: It is largely a collection of his speeches with some
2:23
Speaker 2: small tweaks to them. There's a little bit of new
2:26
Speaker 2: stuff responding to some criticisms of the way the court
2:30
Speaker 2: has handled the emergency or so-called shadow docket. But it
2:35
Speaker 2: is mostly things he has said before.
2:37
Speaker 1: I mean, does he see himself as being one of
2:40
Speaker 1: the drivers of the movement on the court to move
2:45
Speaker 1: the law on the court to the right?
2:47
Speaker 2: He certainly acknowledges that one thing he does and he
2:51
Speaker 2: takes pride in is crafting majority opinions. And, you know,
2:55
Speaker 2: that really is, especially if you look at him compared
2:58
Speaker 2: to Justice Thomas, whose views are a bit more, say, idiosyncratic.
3:03
Speaker 2: They are more his views. And sometimes the court comes
3:05
Speaker 2: around to his views. Justice Alito is willing to say, look,
3:09
Speaker 2: I will compromise to put together a majority opinion. That's
3:11
Speaker 2: what you have to do on a multi-member court. And
3:15
Speaker 2: that ability that he has is what has let him
3:19
Speaker 2: write the court's big opinions like Dobson and a number
3:22
Speaker 2: of others.
3:23
Speaker 1: When he says he'll compromise, does that mean he actually
3:27
Speaker 1: will change some of the points in his opinion to
3:31
Speaker 1: get five votes so that he can write the majority opinion?
3:35
Speaker 2: He acknowledges, yes, he will do that because that, he says,
3:39
Speaker 2: is part of being on a multi-member court. And of course,
3:42
Speaker 2: he was a judge on the Court of Appeals beforehand.
3:44
Speaker 2: He does value having clear guidance from the Supreme Court
3:48
Speaker 2: and That is something that you can't do if you're
3:51
Speaker 2: falling short of that majority. You need a majority voice. And,
3:55
Speaker 2: you know, it's why you see the Chief Justice John
3:59
Speaker 2: Roberts assigning a lot of big opinions to Justice Alito
4:02
Speaker 2: because he's the guy who can, you know, sort of
4:05
Speaker 2: bring it home.
4:06
Speaker 1: When Dobbs comes up, probably the most controversial opinion that
4:10
Speaker 1: he's written. I mean, does he have any apologies about it?
4:14
Speaker 1: Does he have any regrets about it?
4:17
Speaker 2: Absolutely no apologies. He believes that was the right decision. He,
4:22
Speaker 2: in a different interview, used the word courage to describe
4:25
Speaker 2: what he thought the members of the majority were showing, because,
4:28
Speaker 2: of course, the opinion was leaked. There was a great
4:32
Speaker 2: storm of controversy, and there were death threats against some
4:36
Speaker 2: of the members of the majority. And, of course, there
4:38
Speaker 2: was even somebody who attempted to assassinate a justice in
4:42
Speaker 2: Brett Kavanaugh. And people were wondering, would anything change from
4:46
Speaker 2: the leaked draft opinion? And the answer is no. And
4:50
Speaker 2: in fact, the vote stayed the same as well.
4:52
Speaker 1: Greg, tell us more about his position on the court
4:55
Speaker 1: and the opinions he'll be known for.
4:59
Speaker 2: Well, he will always be known first and foremost as
5:02
Speaker 2: the author of that Dobbs decision. That's going to be,
5:04
Speaker 2: you know, in every obituary about him. But that's really
5:09
Speaker 2: just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the
5:11
Speaker 2: imprint he's had on the law, because as I suggested earlier,
5:15
Speaker 2: he's written a lot of the biggest decisions of this era,
5:18
Speaker 2: of the 6-3 conservative majority and even before that. He
5:23
Speaker 2: has written big decisions on religious rights. He has written
5:27
Speaker 2: big decisions limiting the Voting Rights Act. He wrote a
5:31
Speaker 2: very big decision a number of years ago limiting the
5:34
Speaker 2: power of public sector unions and giving workers more power
5:39
Speaker 2: to say, we don't want to pay for the costs
5:43
Speaker 2: of unions representing us. So he's covered a lot of
5:48
Speaker 2: ground in his opinions. And of course, he's also been
5:50
Speaker 2: a pretty prolific dissenter on those, well, certainly minority of
5:54
Speaker 2: occasions where the court is going against the conservative view,
5:58
Speaker 2: going against the Trump administration.
6:01
Speaker 1: So you write that he insists that the outcomes aren't
6:04
Speaker 1: the driving force. But how does he explain that his
6:08
Speaker 1: analysis always gets him to a very conservative result? You know,
6:14
Speaker 1: as you said, cutting off voting rights, cutting off union rights,
6:18
Speaker 1: but giving more religious rights, giving more gun rights and
6:21
Speaker 1: almost always siding with President Trump. How does his analysis
6:26
Speaker 1: get him to the same spot?
6:28
Speaker 2: Well, he starts with the notion that he thinks this
6:30
Speaker 2: is a really good constitution we have and a constitution
6:33
Speaker 2: that protects the rights, for the most part, that he
6:36
Speaker 2: thinks ought to be protected. So he kind of has
6:39
Speaker 2: a big point in his favor going in. What he
6:42
Speaker 2: told me is that what he'll do is he'll do
6:44
Speaker 2: the legal analysis he thinks is required, looking at the
6:47
Speaker 2: original meaning of the words of the constitution, and he'll
6:50
Speaker 2: sort of check that against to make sure there aren't
6:53
Speaker 2: absurd results, to make sure it kind of passes the
6:56
Speaker 2: common sense test from his standpoint. And as it turns out,
7:01
Speaker 2: he says that, for the most part, I like the results.
7:03
Speaker 2: And he says that's something that originalists should not apologize for.
7:07
Speaker 2: In fact, in the book, he warns against what he
7:10
Speaker 2: calls insecure originalists who might sort of pull their punches
7:14
Speaker 2: or sort of put a thumb on the scale in
7:16
Speaker 2: the other direction to try to avoid coming to the
7:20
Speaker 2: result that they like because they don't want their personal
7:23
Speaker 2: results playing into it. He says, no, I'm willing to
7:27
Speaker 2: say I like this result and it's justified by the,
7:31
Speaker 2: it's required actually by the Constitution.
7:34
Speaker 1: I'd love to know what the absurd results might be
7:37
Speaker 1: that he ended up rejecting because originalism depends on which
7:42
Speaker 1: examples from history judges pick. Just adding my critique of originalism.
7:48
Speaker 1: Going back to Alito, he seems to be the justice
7:52
Speaker 1: who is most inclined to express frustration, shall we say?
7:57
Speaker 1: I mean, the classic case is his shaking his head
8:02
Speaker 1: back and forth during President Barack Obama's State of the Union,
8:07
Speaker 1: where he criticized the Citizens United case. We've seen him
8:11
Speaker 1: react more than other justices.
8:14
Speaker 2: Yeah, he acknowledged that. As he put it to me,
8:16
Speaker 2: he feels strongly about the issues and, quote, maybe I
8:18
Speaker 2: don't hide that as much as a lot of other people.
8:21
Speaker 2: He is certainly a justice who wears his feelings on
8:24
Speaker 2: his sleeve. He is somebody who you can see have
8:28
Speaker 2: reactions while sitting on the bench, and we've certainly seen
8:32
Speaker 2: a number of occasions over the years where he's really
8:35
Speaker 2: lashed out at criticism. One of the interesting things about
8:38
Speaker 2: the book is that some of the speeches are a
8:41
Speaker 2: bit more detached and scholarly and even-tempered in tone than
8:46
Speaker 2: when you get to the one where he's talking about
8:49
Speaker 2: criticism of the emergency docket, where you can just tell
8:52
Speaker 2: he's he's mad and he's not pulling his punches. And
8:56
Speaker 2: he especially doesn't like the phrase shadow docket, which he
9:00
Speaker 2: says suggests that the court is, you know, acting as
9:02
Speaker 2: a kind of secret cabal doing nefarious things. That is
9:06
Speaker 2: certainly a part of who he is, is he doesn't
9:09
Speaker 2: hide his irritation.
9:10
Speaker 1: Did you talk to him about the Democrats wanting to
9:15
Speaker 1: overhaul the court?
9:16
Speaker 3: I did.
9:17
Speaker 2: I asked him about the proposals out there in the
9:20
Speaker 2: discussion about adding seats to the court. about imposing term limits,
9:25
Speaker 2: which would probably require a constitutional amendment. Expanding the court
9:29
Speaker 2: is actually something Congress could do on its own. And
9:31
Speaker 2: he said he didn't want to talk about specific proposals, but,
9:34
Speaker 2: you know, say in a not so veiled way that
9:37
Speaker 2: people should think about the impact that those would have
9:40
Speaker 2: on the independence of the court. The implication being that
9:44
Speaker 2: those would just make the court more of a political
9:47
Speaker 2: body and more subject to the whims of Congress whenever
9:52
Speaker 2: it would change hands. He also did talk a little bit,
9:55
Speaker 2: or at least he alluded to a brief that was
9:58
Speaker 2: filed a number of years ago. that really got under
10:01
Speaker 2: his skin by a number of Democratic senators who, in
10:05
Speaker 2: the brief, suggested that the court might need to be restructured.
10:08
Speaker 2: And he took that and said in his speech that
10:11
Speaker 2: to be trying to intimidate the court into an outcome
10:14
Speaker 2: in a particular case.
10:15
Speaker 1: I always wonder if any of the justices care when
10:19
Speaker 1: they see that their approval numbers with the American public
10:23
Speaker 1: are at all-time lows. Does Alito have any concerns about
10:28
Speaker 1: the fact that the court is slipping in people's opinions?
10:32
Speaker 2: He doesn't seem to have major concerns about that. In fact,
10:35
Speaker 2: he takes pride in the notion that the court should
10:40
Speaker 2: not be responsive to popular opinion that sometimes the court
10:44
Speaker 2: has to do things that it thinks are right and
10:49
Speaker 2: sort of let the chips fall where they may. The
10:53
Speaker 2: court is not designed to respond to public opinion in
10:56
Speaker 2: his mind. That's why Supreme Court justices have life tenure.
11:00
Speaker 1: Well, it sounds like you've covered a lot of bases
11:02
Speaker 1: with him, Greg. Thanks so much. That's Bloomberg Supreme Court
11:06
Speaker 1: reporter Greg Storr. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show.
11:11
Speaker 1: fallout from the botched execution of a woman in Tennessee,
11:15
Speaker 1: the second failed execution in that state this year. What
11:19
Speaker 1: happens next? Remember, you can always get the latest legal
11:23
Speaker 1: news by listening to our Bloomberg Law podcast. And attorneys,
11:27
Speaker 1: looking for legal research? Whether you're an in-house counsel or
11:31
Speaker 1: in private practice, Bloomberg Law gives you the edge. with
11:35
Speaker 1: the latest in AI-powered legal analytics, business insights, and workflow tools.
11:41
Speaker 1: With guidance from our experts, you'll grasp the latest trends
11:44
Speaker 1: in the legal industry, helping you achieve better results. For
11:48
Speaker 1: the practice of law, the business of law, the future
11:51
Speaker 1: of law, visit BloombergLaw.com. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening
11:56
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg.
12:00
Speaker 2: So far as we know, the Department of Correction followed
12:02
Speaker 2: exactly the protocol that was outlined and vetted and approved
12:06
Speaker 2: by the Attorney General's office.
12:08
Speaker 1: Tennessee's Governor Bill Lee has ordered an investigation into the
12:12
Speaker 1: state's capital punishment system after the botched execution of Krista
12:17
Speaker 1: Pike last Wednesday night, the second botched execution in the
12:22
Speaker 1: state this year. Pike, now 50, was convicted of torturing
12:26
Speaker 1: and killing a teenage classmate in 1995. Prison officials gave
12:31
Speaker 1: Pike two doses of the lethal injection drug pentobarbital, but
12:36
Speaker 1: she survived. She was unconscious and on a ventilator until
12:40
Speaker 1: today when her attorneys say she's awake and speaking. Some
12:44
Speaker 1: of Tennessee's top Republicans have said they want to explore
12:48
Speaker 1: alternative ways of executing condemned prisoners, eyeing potential changes to
12:54
Speaker 1: the state's execution laws during their 2027 session. Joining me
12:59
Speaker 1: is an expert in the death penalty, Bernard Harcourt, a
13:03
Speaker 1: professor at Columbia Law School. In legal filings before her
13:07
Speaker 1: execution date, Pike's attorneys had argued against using pinobarbital because
13:15
Speaker 1: of a blood disorder she had. And so the prison
13:17
Speaker 1: was on notice.
13:19
Speaker 3: Maybe I can give you some background first. I represented
13:22
Speaker 3: a man in Alabama in 2018. who had serious problems
13:29
Speaker 3: with Venus access. And it was a case that I
13:33
Speaker 3: litigated strenuously through the state and federal courts back in 2017, 2018,
13:38
Speaker 3: telling them that they wouldn't find a vein. And the
13:42
Speaker 3: execution went forward ultimately, and they spent two and a
13:46
Speaker 3: half hours pricking and prodding him in his legs and
13:49
Speaker 3: his groin, and they were unable to place a line.
13:52
Speaker 3: And so he survived that execution. It was a gruesome ordeal.
13:56
Speaker 3: And so when I heard about the Krista Pike case,
14:01
Speaker 3: and I heard that the attorneys had raised some warnings
14:05
Speaker 3: about the fact that she would have difficult venous access,
14:09
Speaker 3: that her veins were compromised because they were small veins
14:13
Speaker 3: and also because she had a blood condition. And as
14:16
Speaker 3: I followed the execution, it really felt like deja vu, tragically,
14:22
Speaker 3: of what had happened in Dole Ham's case. but also
14:26
Speaker 3: in a number of other cases recently involving lethal injections.
14:30
Speaker 3: So the attorneys had warned the state, but the state
14:34
Speaker 3: nevertheless went forward, kind of barreled forward, and encountered extreme difficulties.
14:41
Speaker 3: It seems as if, I mean, we don't have a
14:44
Speaker 3: medical examination yet, but it seems as if the catheters,
14:48
Speaker 3: which are intended to enter the veins of actually entered
14:52
Speaker 3: into her flesh rather than into her veins. And that's
14:56
Speaker 3: something that's happened before. It's extremely painful, as Krista Pike
15:02
Speaker 3: was telling the executioners. But also what it does is
15:06
Speaker 3: it means that the drugs have an effect of reducing
15:11
Speaker 3: the heartbeat and reducing the oxygen that goes to the brain.
15:15
Speaker 3: And so effectively, it seems as if Krista Pike suffered
15:19
Speaker 3: pretty extensive brain damage. as a result.
15:22
Speaker 1: So then in this case, it's not that the drugs
15:25
Speaker 1: were bad?
15:26
Speaker 3: It's possible. It's possible that the drugs were degraded. It's
15:30
Speaker 3: possible that basically that their shelf life had passed and
15:34
Speaker 3: that the drugs themselves were degraded. That's the other best
15:40
Speaker 3: explanation for what might have happened. But I'm pretty confident
15:46
Speaker 3: from the reports and having spoken to some of the
15:50
Speaker 3: best doctors who know this business, it's anesthesiologists really who
15:54
Speaker 3: know this business, that it was infiltration. She repeatedly stated
15:59
Speaker 3: during the execution that her arm was burning and that
16:04
Speaker 3: is typically associated with infiltration of the drugs into her muscle,
16:09
Speaker 3: into her flesh. rather than into her veins. I mean,
16:12
Speaker 3: that's a classic red flag that what we've got is infiltration.
16:18
Speaker 3: But it is possible that what may also have been
16:21
Speaker 3: partly responsible may have been degraded drugs.
16:25
Speaker 1: So I was shocked in reading about this, that, I mean,
16:29
Speaker 1: you don't know where the states are getting these drugs from,
16:31
Speaker 1: because the pharmaceutical companies are not making them anymore. And
16:35
Speaker 1: in some instances, they're paying for them in cash.
16:37
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a very shady business. Some of the reporting
16:41
Speaker 3: that's been done on this has revealed that states are
16:44
Speaker 3: obtaining these drugs from these kind of– you can't even
16:47
Speaker 3: call them pharmacies, really. It's kind of like these backdoor
16:51
Speaker 3: kind of enterprises that are basically compounding some of this
16:54
Speaker 3: stuff practically illegally, coming from foreign countries where drugs are
17:00
Speaker 3: not regulated. It's a real– It's a real mess. The
17:04
Speaker 3: drug companies have prohibited states from using their drugs to
17:09
Speaker 3: conduct executions. I mean, you know, these are medical substances
17:13
Speaker 3: that are intended to keep people alive for purposes of health,
17:17
Speaker 3: for purposes sometimes of anesthetics, for purposes of reducing heart rates,
17:23
Speaker 3: for people who have arhythms in their heartbeats and whatnot.
17:27
Speaker 3: I mean, these are intended to be life-saving medical drugs.
17:31
Speaker 3: And so the pharmaceuticals have basically said they don't want
17:35
Speaker 3: them used in their executions. Now, some states, despite that
17:41
Speaker 3: prohibition by the drug companies, nevertheless use some of these
17:45
Speaker 3: drugs that they've obtained some way or another from these companies.
17:49
Speaker 3: So the result is that the states do try to
17:52
Speaker 3: obtain these drugs through the shadiest of dealers. And as
17:58
Speaker 3: a result... the quality of the drug itself is highly suspect.
18:05
Speaker 3: But also, they have some reserves that the shelf life
18:09
Speaker 3: is past, and they continue to use those anyway.
18:12
Speaker 1: And what about the quality of the person administering the injection?
18:16
Speaker 3: That's the biggest problem. I mean, the biggest problem here
18:19
Speaker 3: is that the people who are actually trying to achieve
18:25
Speaker 3: venous access are, for the most part, incompetent and not qualified.
18:31
Speaker 3: That's really what makes lethal injection such a problem. If
18:35
Speaker 3: you have a top doctor at a good hospital in
18:39
Speaker 3: the operating room under the ideal conditions of a surgery,
18:44
Speaker 3: it's not hard to place a line. Even with someone
18:48
Speaker 3: who has difficult veins, it's not that hard for someone
18:53
Speaker 3: who's really qualified. Here the executioners have to insert two catheters.
18:57
Speaker 3: These are pretty big catheters. I mean, these aren't like
18:59
Speaker 3: butterfly needles that are used when we draw blood. But
19:02
Speaker 3: it's done every day in the operating room by talented
19:06
Speaker 3: doctors who would be able to place a line on
19:09
Speaker 3: practically anybody. The difference is that these executions are taking
19:15
Speaker 3: place in the dark bowels of some prison somewhere, usually
19:21
Speaker 3: late at night under extremely stressful conditions. by people who
19:25
Speaker 3: are essentially unqualified to be trying to place a line.
19:30
Speaker 3: Who is it? Well, usually it's somebody who's kind of
19:33
Speaker 3: like a local EMT, someone who's got emergency, you know,
19:37
Speaker 3: EMT training, and not a doctor who's in the operating
19:40
Speaker 3: room every day placing line. The reason is, of course,
19:43
Speaker 3: the doctors don't want to be involved in executions because
19:46
Speaker 3: they take a Hippocratic oath. They've taken an oath that
19:48
Speaker 3: they're going to use their skills and their talent and
19:51
Speaker 3: their mission to save lives. So you are not going
19:55
Speaker 3: to be getting a good doctor willing to do this, right?
19:59
Speaker 3: It's usually just some EMT who maybe has some training,
20:05
Speaker 3: some basic training, but really doesn't know how to do it. Or,
20:08
Speaker 3: you know, in the case of Krista Pike, it's some
20:10
Speaker 3: doctor who hasn't placed a line in something like 13 years.
20:14
Speaker 3: And that kind of person is not going to be
20:17
Speaker 3: able to put in a catheter in someone who's got
20:21
Speaker 3: a difficult venous condition. That's all there is to it.
20:24
Speaker 3: And the result is that we've just seen more and
20:27
Speaker 3: more of these cases where the lethal injection is basically
20:33
Speaker 3: botched Those cases are torturous ordeals. Krista Pike's case was
20:39
Speaker 3: not only torturous in terms of trying to insert the needles,
20:43
Speaker 3: and I believe the reports are that there were seven
20:45
Speaker 3: needles that were used. On top of that, of course,
20:48
Speaker 3: was the infiltration of the drugs, which means that she
20:52
Speaker 3: was basically overdosing with this poison and losing consciousness at
21:01
Speaker 3: some point because of lack of blood to the brain.
21:07
Speaker 1: In other cases where there were problems with the administration
21:10
Speaker 1: of the drug, did the state try to execute the
21:16
Speaker 1: defendant again? Try to execute those people again for the
21:19
Speaker 1: most part?
21:20
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a fascinating question. And actually, it takes us
21:24
Speaker 3: back to 1947 in Louisiana and an incredible situation involving
21:31
Speaker 3: a young man by the name of Willie Francis who
21:33
Speaker 3: who was actually 16, African-American young adolescent, who was 16
21:38
Speaker 3: when he committed a crime and was accused and convicted,
21:41
Speaker 3: and 17 when he was put to death. At that time,
21:46
Speaker 3: in 1947 in Louisiana, they had a mobile electric chair.
21:50
Speaker 3: It was an electric chair that was on the back
21:52
Speaker 3: of a pickup truck, and it was transported to his county.
21:55
Speaker 3: It turned out that the sheriff who was driving the
21:58
Speaker 3: truck was drunk, and so he got his wires crossed,
22:01
Speaker 3: and so Willie Francis was still alive. But the state
22:04
Speaker 3: of Louisiana decided that they were going to execute him
22:07
Speaker 3: again by electrocution. And it went all the way up
22:09
Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court. There was an attorney who took
22:12
Speaker 3: the case pro bono and said, look, you can't execute
22:15
Speaker 3: him again. It would violate double jeopardy. Now, double jeopardy
22:19
Speaker 3: is usually used when you've been acquitted. If you've actually
22:23
Speaker 3: been acquitted in state court, say, of a charge, you
22:26
Speaker 3: can't be prosecuted again. That would violate double jeopardy. And
22:30
Speaker 3: the attorney's argument was that, you know, they've tried to
22:32
Speaker 3: execute him once. and you can't execute him again. Double
22:35
Speaker 3: jeopardy would bar that. That's an interesting argument. And what's
22:39
Speaker 3: more interesting is that what the Supreme Court said was, no,
22:42
Speaker 3: you can go ahead, Louisiana, because it was a complete accident.
22:46
Speaker 3: So there was a Supreme Court case from 1947 where
22:50
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court allows a second execution. However, and of
22:55
Speaker 3: course this was my argument in Dole Ham's case, in
22:58
Speaker 3: Dole's Ham's case and in Krista Pike's case, it wasn't
23:02
Speaker 3: an accident. And that's the point. It wasn't an accident
23:05
Speaker 3: because the state was warned and told that they weren't
23:09
Speaker 3: going to be able to achieve Venus access. In Dole
23:12
Speaker 3: Ham's case back in 2017, 2018, I spent seven months
23:16
Speaker 3: litigating this in the state courts, in the federal courts,
23:20
Speaker 3: at the 11th Circuit, up to the United States Supreme Court.
23:23
Speaker 3: I took the position that it would violate double jeopardy
23:26
Speaker 3: because it wasn't an accident. So the Willie Francis logic
23:30
Speaker 3: didn't apply, right? This was the exception, not the rule.
23:35
Speaker 3: I don't think that Krista Pikes, what tragically happened to her,
23:38
Speaker 3: was an accident. They were warned. Again, here, Tennessee was
23:41
Speaker 3: warned that they were going to have a difficult time
23:43
Speaker 3: getting Venus access because of her veins. So I don't
23:47
Speaker 3: think that it's an accident. As a result, I do
23:49
Speaker 3: think that Double Jeopardy would preclude a second execution process.
23:54
Speaker 3: under the United States Supreme Court's decision in the Willie
23:56
Speaker 3: Francis case from 1947.
23:59
Speaker 1: Right now, Pike's attorneys are asking the Tennessee governor to
24:02
Speaker 1: commute Pike's sentence to life in prison without the possibility
24:06
Speaker 1: of parole. Thanks for joining me today. That's Professor Bernard
24:10
Speaker 1: Harcourt of Columbia Law School. His forthcoming book is called
24:15
Speaker 1: A Time to Live, Doyley Hamm's Decades-Long Struggle on Death Row.
24:21
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember,
24:24
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on our
24:26
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
24:31
Speaker 1: and at www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to
24:37
Speaker 1: tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m.
24:40
Speaker 1: Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.