Attorneys opposing Maryland?s death penalty in federal court argued Wednesday that the state?s executions are too cruel for even animals.
Attorney A. Stephen Hut objected in his closing arguments to Maryland?s lethal injection procedures, saying not even “barn-yard” animals or “wildlife” would be killed with such shoddy procedures.
He said the procedures violate the U.S. Constitution?s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Hut represents convicted murderer Vernon Evans Jr., who was sentenced for the April 28, 1983, murders of two Pikesville residents, one of whom was scheduled to testify in a federal drug case.
Evans? attorneys have taken issue with Maryland?s “three-drug cocktail” used to execute prisoners. The attorneys also have objected to the state?s use of correctional officers without medical training as executioners.
U.S. District Court Judge Benson Legg on Wednesday said he is considering ordering the state to search for doctors who might participate in an execution, even though medical associations ban such involvement.
Assistant Attorney General Phillip Pickus said no matter what doctors the state finds, Evans? attorneys and lawyers like them will object to their qualifications.
“This is a slippery slope that we do not want to go down,” Pickus said.
Also at issue is whether Evans? veins are too damaged from years of drug use for the inmate to have a painless death. Two medical experts testified for Evans during the trial that they could not find suitable veins for an execution. A member of Maryland?s execution team testified, however, that she could find usable veins on Evans.
In a separate legal matter, Maryland?s Court of Appeals has stayed Evans? execution while Evans awaits its ruling on four separate cases including a claim that racial bias played a role in the way prosecutors seek the death penalty.
