National Roundup

New Mexico
Court hears suit against police in disappearance of man 42 years ago
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — The New Mexico Supreme Court has heard oral arguments over whether the family of a man who disappeared four decades ago can pursue claims against the City of Albuquerque.

The wrongful death lawsuit brought by the son of Jose Farfan went before the Supreme Court on Monday for oral arguments.

The 2016 lawsuit accuses two Albuquerque police officers of taking Farfan to the mountains east of town and shooting him in the spring of 1976. The lawsuit also accuses authorities of seeking to cover up the case.

The officers were not charged in Farfan’s death. The lawsuit alleges that after Farfan’s disappearance, authorities collected evidence tying the officers to his killing that Farfan’s family only learned about in 2016.

Nevada
Court considers first execution since 2006
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — Nevada’s Supreme Court is considering whether to allow the state to move forward with its first execution of a death row inmate in 12 years.

Federal public defenders and the American Civil Liberties Union are challenging Nevada’s plan to use a combination of three drugs never tried before in the United States.

Twice-convicted killer Scott Raymond Dozier says he wants to be put to death as soon as possible, and doesn’t care what drugs are used in the fatal injection that a judge in Las Vegas blocked in November after opponents argued one of the drugs could cover up potential suffering.

The Supreme Court scheduled an hour’s worth of oral arguments Tuesday in Carson City. A ruling could be months away.

The ACLU says the experimental mixture of drugs includes a paralytic that’s illegal to use when euthanizing pets in Nevada.

It says the execution would violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishment” as well the Nevada constitution, which outlaws “either” cruel or unusual punishment.

Among the questions the federal public defender and ACLU say must be answered is whether the state is required to establish the “severity and duration of pain likely to be produced.” They argue Dozier could be “awake and aware for several minutes while suffering and suffocating to death.”

ACLU lawyer Amy Rose said it could result “in a tortuous death akin to waterboarding.”

“Causing death by suffocation is not only cruel, but torture,” she said last week.

Dozier, 47, was found guilty of the 2007 murder and dismemberment of 22-year-old Jeremiah Miller, whose torso was found in a suitcase dumped into a trash bin in Las Vegas. He also was convicted in 2005 of second-degree murder of another victim, whose torso was found buried in the Arizona desert.

“My overarching and near singular desire is to get my execution done as expeditiously as possible,” Dozier wrote in a handwritten note Dec. 12 letter from Ely state prison.

“The bottom line is: It’s his choice,” chief Clark County district attorney Jonathan VanBoskerck said.

Nevada has executed 12 inmates since capital punishment was reinstated by the legislature in 1977. The last was Daryl Mack, who was put to death by lethal injection on April 26, 2006 for the 1988 rape and murder of a Reno woman, Betty Jane May.

Nevada is among several states that have struggled in recent years to find drugs after pharmaceutical companies and distributors banned their use in executions.

The Nevada Department of Corrections wants to use a three-drug mix including the sedative diazepam, commonly known as Valium, the powerful opioid painkiller fentanyl and the paralytic, cisatracurium.

Dozier’s execution was called off last November after Clark County Judge Jennifer Togliatti in Las Vegas decided prison officials could use the first two drugs, which an expert medical witness testified would probably be enough to cause death. She temporarily banned the use of the paralytic out of concerns that its effect would prevent witnesses from seeing indications of pain if Dozier suffers.


Kansas
ACLU wants Kobach to pay damages of more than $50,000
WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — The American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal judge on Monday to order Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach to pay more than $50,000 in attorney fees and other damages as punishment for violating a court order to fully register some voters.

Its filing comes in the wake of last month’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson finding Kobach, a candidate for Kansas governor, in contempt of court in a lawsuit challenging a Kansas law requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote.

Kobach is nationally known for championing tough immigration and voter identification laws and served as vice chairman of President Donald Trump’s now-disbanded commission on election fraud.

Robinson didn’t impose a fine at the time of her contempt hearing but ordered Kobach to pay for damages, including attorney fees. The ACLU said litigating the contempt motion required 133.5 attorney hours and more than 19 paralegal hours amounting to $49,637.04. It also incurred expenses in the amount of $2,009.12.

The ACLU sought the contempt ruling after Kobach refused to update the state’s election guide or ensure that county officials sent postcards to residents who registered at driver licensing offices without providing citizenship documents. The postcards contain basic voting information such as a voter’s polling place.

Robinson said during a contempt hearing in March that she had made it clear voters covered by a May 2016 injunction she imposed were not to be treated differently.

Kobach did not immediately respond to an afterhours email seeking comment. He has appealed the initial contempt ruling to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, although the ACLU has argued that appeal is premature because a final judgment has not yet been entered in the contempt ruling.

The contempt hearing came after seven days of testimony in the ACLU’s challenge of the state’s voter registration law. Robinson has not yet filed a ruling in the larger lawsuit over the state’s voter identification law.

The ACLU told Robinson in its latest filing that Kobach has continued to deny responsibility for his underlying actions that gave rise to the contempt motion and has displayed disregard for this court’s authority. It cited an interview Kobach gave last month in which he described the court’s contempt order as “just ridiculous.”

“Defendant’s failure to take responsibility for his actions and his continued disrespect for the Court’s authority suggest that significant monetary sanctions are necessary to deter future non-compliance,” according to the ACLU filing.”