Two Oklahoma death row inmates have filed a lawsuit against the state Department of Corrections over concerns about the secrecy of the compounding pharmacy used to supply the pentobarbital used in lethal injections. Pending the resolution of the lawsuit, Clayton Derrell Lockett, 38, and Charles Frederick Warner, 46, are seeking a stay of execution. Both men are scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection in the next two weeks. Lockett's execution is currently scheduled for March 20; Warner's is scheduled for March 27.
The men requested a temporary stay of execution from Oklahoma County District Judge Patricia Parrish on Monday. She denied the request, saying that while she is the appropriate judge to handle the lawsuit, she does not have jurisdiction to delay their executions.
Yesterday, lawyers for the two inmates asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court for an emergency stay of execution to delay the executions until after the lawsuit has been resolved.
At issue in the lethal injection lawsuit is the Oklahoma Department of Correction's policy of keeping the names of compounding pharmacies secret. The plaintiffs say that the DOC's secrecy about the source of the pentobarbital used in the state's 3-drug lethal injection protocol could lead to significant suffering.
In recent months, several death row inmates have appeared to have discomfort or made statements upon injection that seemed to indicate that the process is not as painless as claimed. An inmate executed in September appeared to grimace. One executed in January of this year complained of a "chemical taste" in his mouth, and another said, "I feel my whole body burning."
Oklahoma became the first state to use pentobarbital in lethal injections. When it was first used, an expert testified that the 5 grams of pentobarbital used in the state's lethal injection protocol was more than sufficient to stop pain and to stop the inmate's breathing.
However, some people have become concerned that his statements applied only to pure pentobarbital. The compounding pharmacies which supply the drug may have different mixtures for different purposes, and the strength or weakness of these mixtures could affect the amount of suffering an executed inmate endures.
The lawsuit says that by keeping the Department of Correction's pentobarbital supplier secret, there is no way to know what mixture is being provided. In light of recent executions, lawyers and inmates are concerned that the pentobarbital does not eliminate pain, but merely masks it by rendering the inmates unable to move.
If the mixture causes undue suffering, it would be a violation of the inmates' rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
The lawsuit filed by Lockett's and Warner's attorneys has been moved from state court to federal court and back to Oklahoma County District Court. The lawsuit challenges whether shielding the source of the drug is a violation of the Oklahoma Constitution, and whether allowing pentobarbital to be used in lethal injections is a violation of the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act.
An Oklahoma City doctor charged with nine counts of murder related to prescription drug deaths has now been named in a civil lawsuit.
William Martin Valuck, 71, and his physician's assistant Michael E. Hume, are named as defendants in a medical malpractice lawsuit on behalf of Joyce Cathline Curnett. Curnett died of a prescription drug overdose on December 30, 2012, just two weeks after her 53rd birthday and just two days after Valuck prescribed her 600 pills.
The lawsuit, filed by Curnett's husband, alleges that Valuck showed "gross neglect" in managing his patient's pain, and that his actions demonstrated wanton and "reckless disregard" for her health and safety.
Valuck surrendered his Oklahoma medical license in the midst of an investigation into allegations that he and Hume were overprescribing painkillers and anti-anxiety drugs and that they were not conducting patient exams or establishing a doctor-patient relationship.
He was arrested in Texas in late December 2013, and he is being held without bond in the Oklahoma City jail. Valuck is charged with 72 counts of illegal prescription drug distribution as well as nine counts of first degree murder.
The murder charges stem from eight patient overdose deaths and one fatal traffic accident caused by a patient who was under the influence of prescription drugs. These nine deaths occurred in just over a year, between September 2012 and December 2013.
A Tulsa newspaper reports that many of the overdose deaths occurred within days of receiving prescriptions for hundreds of pain pills and anti-anxiety pills including OxyContin, hydrocodone, Valium, and Xanax--some of the most highly abused prescription drugs available:
Valuck allegedly did not accept any insurance, with all office visits on a cash payment basis. A local news outlet reports that the first visit was $250, with subsequent visits charged at $120 or $160 if the visit included urinalysis. Investigators say Valuck prescribed painkillers at such an extraordinary rate that certain pharmacies refused to fill the doctor's prescriptions. They accuse him of filling prescriptions at a rate of 3.5 million pills per year.
Although the Curnett case is the first civil lawsuit filed against the former Oklahoma City-area doctor, it will not likely be the last. If convicted of murder and drug distribution, Valuck faces life in prison.
Oklahoma City police responding to complaints of a man "acting crazy" discovered a 4-year-old boy wandering around an apartment complex shortly after midnight in 42 degree weather and a toddler left unattended in an apartment.
Police say that Jerry Lewis Bynes, 49, alternately listed as Jerry Louis Bynes, was supposed to be watching the children, but when they arrived, he appeared to by high on PCP. Officers described him as smelling of ether, not responding to questions, and looking around "as though he was seeing things that weren't there."
PCP, or phencyclidine, is a potent hallucinogen and dissociative anesthetic which is commonly dissolved in ether. Drugfree.org describes the effects of PCP as follows:
While police were responding to the apparently intoxicated man and the unattended children, the children's mother returned home. She told police that she was letting Bynes, who had just been released from prison in August, stay with her until he got "back on his feet." She said he agreed to watch the children while she went to dinner and the movies with her sister.
Because Bynes was responsible for the welfare of the children in their mother's absence, and because he allegedly got high on PCP instead of watching the kids, he was arrested on a complaint of child endangerment and booked into the Oklahoma County Jail on $20,000 bond.
Oklahoma law defines child endangerment as follows according to 21 O.S. 852.1:
A person who is the parent, guardian, or person having custody or control over a child as defined in Section 1-1-105 of Title 10A of the Oklahoma Statutes, commits child endangerment when the person:
Penalties for child endangerment under this statute include a maximum of 4 years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.
Although the mother has not been criminally charged, she may have cause to be concerned after leaving a convicted felon with a history of drug abuse, violence, and sexual assault to watch her children.
Bynes's criminal record includes the following convictions, according to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections Offender Lookup:
While the children's mother may not have known about Bynes's past, under Oklahoma law, she could be held criminally liable for enabling child neglect if she knew or should have reasonably known that placing her children in Bynes's care left them at risk of harm. In 21 O.S. 843.5, enabling child neglect and its associated penalties are described as follows:
Any parent or other person who shall willfully or maliciously engage in enabling child neglect shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections not exceeding life imprisonment, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or both such fine and imprisonment. As used in this subsection, "enabling child neglect" means the causing, procuring or permitting of a willful or malicious act of child neglect, as defined by paragraph 46 of Section 1-1-105 of Title 10A of the Oklahoma Statutes, of a child under eighteen (18) years of age by another. As used in this subsection, "permit" means to authorize or allow for the care of a child by an individual when the person authorizing or allowing such care knows or reasonably should know that the child will be placed at risk of neglect as proscribed by this subsection.
Fortunately, in this case, police were notified before the children endured any significant harm or required medical attention.
On an August afternoon in Duncan, Oklahoma, 22-year-old Christopher Lane set out for a jog. He would not return alive.
Lane, an Australian citizen attending East Central University on a baseball scholarship, was shot and killed as he jogged, selected at random by three teens accused of murdering him because they were "bored and wanted to shoot someone."
Shortly after the shooting, Duncan police arrested three teens in connection with the killing: James Francis Edwards, Jr., 15 at the time; Chancey Allen Luna, 16; and Michael Dewayne Jones, then 17. Initially, Edwards and Luna were charged as adults with first degree murder, and Jones was charged as a youthful offender with being an accessory to murder after the fact and using a vehicle to facilitate the discharge of a firearm.
Since then, things have changed.
In November, charges against Jones were upgraded to first degree murder, after an investigation alleged that Jones intentionally swerved toward Lane in order to help Luna fire at him. Earlier this month, charges against Edwards were reduced to being an accessory after the fact when he agreed to testify against his co-defendants in exchange for reduced charges.
On February 4, Edwards testified for the prosecution in a preliminary hearing. He said that he was in the front passenger seat rolling a joint when Jones, the driver of the vehicle, swerved toward Lane and Luna shot him. He says his two friends looked "cold and shocked," and that later, Luna told Jones, "I thought there were supposed to be blanks in the gun," to which Jones replied, "Me, too. Sorry."
Edwards's testimony that the killing was accidental contradicts other evidence in the case. After the arrests, Jones told investigators that the three selected Lane at random, shooting him because they were bored. At least two of the suspects have also been linked to the killing of a donkey the night before as well as shooting two vehicles in the early morning hours of August 16. These shootings indicate that the teens did, in fact, know that they were carrying loaded weapons, and some say the vehicle and animal shootings were a type of drive-by target practice.
The preliminary hearing which began earlier this month is delayed until March, because one teen witness insisted upon speaking with an attorney before testifying. Stephens County Special Judge Jerry Herberger agreed to appoint the teen a lawyer and scheduled the conclusion of the hearing for March 12.
Edwards's attorney is requesting that his client be charged as a youthful offender rather than an adult for the accessory charge. He is expected in court in May.
Typically, when we hear of an armed robber, an armed home invasion, or an assault with a dangerous or deadly weapon, we think of a suspect armed with a gun, or a knife, or something that is considered a weapon in general. However, Oklahoma assault laws define dangerous weapons much more broadly, allowing even the most mundane household items to be termed "weapons" when they are used to threaten or inflict harm.
Earlier this week, two Tulsa men were arrested after an armed home invasion in which they allegedly used not only firearms, but also a staple gun in order to perpetrate the crime.
In the incident, police say, three men forcibly entered a Tulsa apartment, demanding cash and drugs from the occupants. They robbed the victims at gunpoint before binding them with duct tape. Police say the men then used a staple gun to staple the lips of one of the victims.
According to this report, one of the suspects later posted his whereabouts on Facebook, and police found him and an accomplice exactly where they said they were going to be--Whataburger. As of this writing, police are still looking for the third suspect.
Angel Rodriguez, 21, and Mario Mediano, 19, were booked into the Tulsa County jail on first degree robbery, armed robbery, and stolen vehicle complaints. An Oklahoma court records search shows that the two men have not been formally charged at this time.
In 21 O.S. 797, first degree robbery is defined as any robbery--or taking of property from a person or in his or her presence--that is perpetrated through the threat or infliction of serious bodily injury against the victim. A conviction of first degree robbery carries a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison.
In Section 801, armed robbery is codified as Robbery or Attempted Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon or Imitation Firearm. This section reads as follows:
"Any person or persons who, with the use of any firearms or any other dangerous weapons, whether the firearm is loaded or not, or who uses a blank or imitation firearm capable of raising in the mind of the one threatened with such device a fear that it is a real firearm, attempts to rob or robs any person or persons, or who robs or attempts to rob any place of business, residence or banking institution or any other place inhabited or attended by any person or persons at any time, either day or night, shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction therefor, shall suffer punishment by imprisonment for life in the State Penitentiary, or for a period of time not less than five (5) years, at the discretion of the court, or the jury trying the same."
The minimum penalty is the same for armed robbery whether the gun is loaded or not, real or replica. The law also provides the same minimum penalty even if the defendant is armed with "any dangerous weapon;" however, it fails to specify what constitutes a dangerous weapon.
If one seeks a little more clarification about what may legally be considered a dangerous weapon, one could try looking at the statute governing Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (21 O.S. 645). In this section, penalties are enhanced for anyone who commits assault and battery using "any sharp or dangerous weapon." Again, this statute does not delineate any specific criteria of a dangerous weapon.
As the law is written, any object that is used to threaten harm or inflict harm can be considered a dangerous weapon, whether combat or self defense is the intended purpose of that item. Cars are frequently considered deadly weapons if a driver attempts to run down a victim; pens, pencils, and screwdrivers can be dangerous or deadly weapons if those wielding them attempt to stab someone with them. In any case, using any item to injure or threaten to injure another person will likely lead to enhanced penalties.
In response to a defense motion for the dismissal of charges against a 76-year-old church leader accused of molesting children in the late 1970's and early 1980's, Pittsburg County prosecutors have filed a motion alleging a church cover-up that delayed discovery of the alleged crimes.
Defense attorneys for Ronald Lawrence of McAlester say that the 12-year statute of limitations has expired for prosecuting the sexual abuse that allegedly occurred between 1977 and 1982. Prosecutors, however, say that the statute of limitations begins with discovery, which they say occurs when the offense is reported to law enforcement. According to the state's attorneys, the crimes were not reported to law enforcement until August 2013 because of a concerted effort by the church's governing body to conceal the crimes.
Lawrence was arrested on November 26, 2013, on complaints of sexually abusing four children while he was an elder with the McAlester Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses. He was released the following day when someone posted his $50,000 bond.
Initially, police say, Lawrence denied any wrongdoing; however, they allege that he later said that there was some "inappropriate" activity with one of the accusers and that it "may have been on purpose." Although there were three accusers--two women and one man who said they were molested by Lawrence as children aged 5 to 13--investigators say Lawrence alerted them to a fourth potential victim when he told them about a boy who accused him of molesting him in the janitor's closet at a bank where he worked. Lawrence allegedly told police that the boy made up the story in order to get him fired from his job. Investigators contacted the man, who refused to discuss the alleged incident with police.
After initially denying any child sexual abuse, Lawrence allegedly called a detective and admitted that the Kingdom Hall had "dis-fellowshipped" him after early allegations that he was molesting children at the church. In order to be reinstated, he said, church officials made him confess to his crimes, which he says he did in 2005. Prosecutors allege the church cover-up as a result of their failure to report suspected sexual abuse when the initial allegations arose that led to church officials kicking him out of the membership, and their failure again to report the alleged crimes when Lawrence confessed to child molestation.
Lawrence is charged with 19 counts of felony sex crimes, including 11 counts of lewd molestation, five counts of forcible oral sodomy, two counts of forcible sodomy and one count of rape by instrumentation.
An 18-year-old Oklahoma City man was charged with multiple sex crimes on Monday after a woman walked in on him performing a sex act on her 12-year-old daughter.
Zachary Buchanan is charged with multiple felony counts, including first degree rape, lewd and indecent acts with a minor, forcible oral sodomy. Investigators say the sexual relationship between Buchanan and his victim began three years ago, when the girl was only 9 years old.
After discovering Buchanan assaulting her daughter, the mother punched him in the face, called police, and took out a Victim's Protection Order (VPO) against Buchanan on behalf of her daughter.
On Wednesday of last week, Buchanan posted on his Facebook profile, "Well, friday i meet up with an admissions counselor for Jobcorps. I should be gone by next week and ill be training for welding. Yay life."
Instead, Friday found him arrested for allegedly molesting a young girl, and this week, instead of training for a career, he is sitting in the Oklahoma County jail awaiting trial for multiple felony sex crimes.
If convicted of the the listed sex offenses, Buchanan faces the possibility of life in prison as well as lifetime sex offender registration as a Level 3 Sex Offender.
Oklahoma laws governing child molestation and child rape are strict and the penalties of conviction severe.
Sex with a child under the age of 14 committed by a person aged 18 or older is first degree rape, whether or not the act was forcible. By statute, first degree rape is punishable by death; however, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional for crimes other than aggravated murder. Instead, first degree rape in Oklahoma carries a minimum sentence of five years in prison and a maximum of life without parole.
Lewd acts with a minor is generally punished by 3 to 20 years in prison; however, if the victim is under the age of 12, the offense carries a minimum term of 25 years.
Forcible sodomy, which includes sodomy by a person over age 18 committed upon a person under age 16, is punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison.
First degree rape, lewd molestation, and forcible sodomy are all "85 percent crimes." This means that anyone convicted of any of these offenses must serve a minimum of 85 percent of his or her sentence before becoming eligible for parole.
Only a day after a teaching assistant at Purdue University shot and killed a colleague, police in Norman, Oklahoma, swarmed the University of Oklahoma after receiving reports of shots fired on campus. The school was locked down, and students received an emergency alert: “OU Emergency: Shooting on campus. Avoid (Gould Hall). Seek immediate shelter in place.” SWAT teams and police tactical units rushed to Gould Hall, the architecture building, with assault rifles drawn.
Approximately 30 minutes after a faculty member called police to report shots fired, the warning to shelter in place was lifted, although the university’s more than 30,000 students were cautioned to stay away from Gould Hall pending the completion of a continuing search.
Their urgent search turned up . . . nothing. They found no gunman, no victims, no bullet casings, no evidence of a shooting at all.
University of Oklahoma spokesperson Catherine Bishop and President David Boren reported that the entire incident was a false alarm, with some speculation that the three “gunshots” that prompted the lockdown were nothing more than equipment backfiring at a nearby construction site.
Still, in the tense moments following the initial shelter-in-place order, the Twittersphere ran amok with rumors: There was a shooting on campus. Witnesses saw a gunman with a rifle. There were two shots. There were three shots. It was a double homicide.
None of the above was true. It wasn’t an “OU shooting;” it was rather a state of chaos launched by one person’s overreaction to an unexplained loud noise.
In his press conference following the incident, OU President David Boren praised the system in place to protect the students, faculty, and employees at the university. In this case, use of the campus-alert system and the mobilization of SWAT teams were not necessary, but one understands how someone could be a little jumpy these days. In the first three weeks of 2014, there have been four school shootings:
All told, there have been 32 school shootings since the mass-killing at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Fortunately, none of these incidents have carried the death toll inflicted at sites like Sandy Hook and Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. The horror of those events has prompted cries for stricter safety measures at educational institutions and more stringent gun laws.
Sure, no one wants the bad guys to have guns, but these people are the ones who often own guns illegally. Tighter gun regulations would likely do little to remove guns from criminals, but would take protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Creating legislation based on the immediate emotional response in the aftermath of a tragedy may not be the best solution. Such decisions are best made when cooler heads prevail.
As the panic over the OU “shooting” shows, cool heads are not prevailing. Panic breeds panic, and in this day and age, overreaction is the norm.
A 28-year-old woman has gained national attention after publicly calling out the teacher who allegedly sexually abused her. The woman, identified only as "Jamie," says a female middle school teacher began molesting her when she was only 12 years old. Jamie says that through a pattern of manipulation and "brainwashing," the sexual abuse continued until she was 18 years old.
Jamie says that when she finally got the courage to report the abuse, some 10 years after it ended, she found out the statute of limitations had expired for pressing charges against her former teacher. Because she felt she could not get justice from the legal system, she decided to exact her own revenge by confronting the teacher and posting a video of their exchange on YouTube.
In the video, Jamie calls her former teacher and tells her that what she did to her was wrong. She tells the woman that she manipulated her and that she should be "so ashamed and so disgusted" with herself. The former teacher responds, "I am. I am."
After recording their conversation, Jamie uploaded the video to YouTube and sent a link to her former teacher. The woman, who was teaching in a different school system than the one in which the abuse allegedly occurred, immediately resigned.
Police in the jurisdiction where the sexual abuse allegedly occurred have begun an investigation into Jamie's allegations; however, they do not know if any charges are likely to be filed until they determine whether or not any crime was actually committed, and if so, what that crime was. The statute of limitations is different for different offenses, and so even if a crime did occur, it may be too late to file criminal charges.
Learn more about child molestation laws in Oklahoma here.
Remember, there is currently no evidence against the teacher; there is only a verbal accusation. Still, the teacher's actions in admitting regret and her immediate resignation upon receiving the link to the video confrontation seem incriminating. This is one of the reasons it is critical that anyone accused or suspected of a criminal offense does not talk about his or her case to anyone except his or her defense lawyer.
Perhaps the teacher's words of regret and self-loathing are taken out of context. Perhaps she understood the impact such an accusation--one that has gone viral, no less--would have on her career, and she resigned as a preemptive move. Regardless of her guilt or innocence in this case, the best move would have been to hang up on her caller and immediately contact a criminal defense attorney.
A DUI arrest is bad enough, but when an impaired driver is transporting an infant or a child, the penalties are much more severe. A Tulsa man arrested Monday afternoon faces a litany of charges after being pulled over for driving with a broken tail light.
The Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper who stopped LeeRoy Edwards, 29, says that he noticed the odor of marijuana as he spoke with Edwards, who allegedly admitted to smoking marijuana two hours prior to the stop. Edwards, who failed a field sobriety test, was transporting a baby in the back seat of the vehicle. The infant was not secured in a car seat or child restraint.
Edwards was booked into the Tulsa County jail on multiple criminal complaints and held on $27,050 bond.
In general a first offense of DUI is a misdemeanor punishable by 10 days to one year in jail, license suspension, drug and alcohol assessment, probation, and associated fines and fees. However, for Edwards, what could have been a simple misdemeanor has been multiplied exponentially by additional charges:
The most serious of these offenses, of course, is child endangerment. It is a felony offense defined in 21 O.S. § 852.1.
A person who is the parent, guardian, or person having custody or control over a child as defined in Section 1-1-105 of Title 10A of the Oklahoma Statutes, commits child endangerment when the person:
Child endangerment is punishable by four years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.
It is never a good idea to drive after drinking, taking certain prescription medication, or using illicit drugs. Doing so endangers not only the life of the impaired driver, but also any passengers and any other driver, passenger, or pedestrian who may come in contact with the driver. Oklahoma prosecutors do not take DUI lightly, and if any other crimes are committed during the act of DUI, or if a DUI accident results in injury or death, the personal and legal consequences can be life-altering.
If you have made the choice drive while intoxicated or impaired, you have already taken a significant risk that compromised your safety and led to your arrest. Do not take further risks with your criminal case. Click here to contact us for a free consultation of your DUI case.
