Nota Bene

The LA Times reports:

Over the objection of three justices, the Supreme Court turned down appeals today from two Los Angeles murderers who said it was unfair that a videotape of the victim’s life was played for jurors before they decided the killer should die.

Defense lawyers had argued that this “cinematic evidence . . . designed to play on the jury’s emotions” should be excluded from a sentencing hearing in a capital case.

Today’s action leaves intact a rule that allows the use of so-called “victim impact evidence” in death penalty cases.

In 1991, the high court upheld this rule and said prosecutors may tell the jury about the victim, her life and the effect of her loss on her family and friends. Its decision restored the use of this evidence, which had been ruled unconstitutional in an earlier decision.

Talkleft has more here.

CNN reports:

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, upheld Kentucky’s use of lethal injection as a means of executing prisoners, ruling that the method — used in 35 states — is properly and humanely applied.The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that Kentucky’s use of lethal injection is not “cruel and unusual.”

At issue was whether the most common method of capital punishment can cause excruciating pain for death row inmates, violating the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” and thereby giving inmates a proper challenge in court.

The justices had never directly addressed the fundamental question over the constitutionality of the chemical “cocktail” of drugs used to execute convicted killers. All but one of the states that perform executions use the three-drug mixture.

You can read the opinion in Baze v. Rees here.

AP News reports:

The US Supreme Court announced Tuesday it would consider the constitutionality of lethal injections, which is used in almost all executions in the United States.

The court agreed to consider the cases of two men condemned to death in the Southern state of Kentucky amid growing controvesy over exactly how lethal injections are administered.

Some argue the executions are often slow and painful and contradict the constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”