Council won't revisit execution rules

Inmates' lawyers let down by refusal

Attorneys for condemned inmates say the Council of State, a panel of top elected officials, shirked its duty Tuesday by refusing to reconsider its previous approval of the state's execution protocol.

In a meeting Tuesday, council members contended that an administrative law judge who ruled in August that the council should have listened to inmates' lawyers did not have jurisdiction to do so.

Insurance Commissioner Jim Long disagreed with the majority, casting the lone dissenting vote.

Executions have been on hold this year because of a series of legal challenges to the death penalty, including the inmates' challenge to the execution protocol.

In August, Judge Fred Morrison Jr. ruled that the council should have allowed attorneys for condemned inmates to participate in its decision, which revised the way the state carries out executions.

The protocol, approved by the council in February, requires a physician to monitor a condemned inmate's "essential body functions" and tell the warden of Central Prison if the inmate shows signs of suffering.

Attorneys such as Mark Kleinschmidt, who represents Jerry Conner, were disappointed with the council's refusal to reconsider.

Kleinschmidt and the other attorneys are concerned that the council approved the protocol on the basis of incomplete or incorrect information from the Attorney General's office.

After Morrison handed down the ruling, attorneys submitted stacks of documents for council members to review.

Kleinschmidt said he was disappointed that the council said it will not review its decision.

"The council failed to carry out its role as the public policy maker," Kleinschmidt said.

The inmates filed a lawsuit against the the council, contending it should have heard arguments from their attorneys before approving the state's revised protocol.

The council took up the protocol issue after Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens decided a nearly 100-year-old law requires the council to approve changes to North Carolina's method of execution. Stephens said the suit should be heard in an administrative hearing, a decision that the council challenged unsuccessfully.

If the inmates' attorneys appeal, the protocol issue will return to Superior Court, where Stephens will review the council's decision, then decide whether he agrees with the council's action or with Morrison's ruling.

Last year, the state changed its lethal injection process to satisfy U.S. District Judge Malcolm Howard, who demanded last year that a doctor oversee an execution, and the state medical board, which said it would punish any doctor who takes an active role in an execution.