Death row child killer says pacemaker will reactivate his heart during execution
Lawyers for a Tennessee death row inmate are making a final attempt to halt his impending execution.
In Nashville's Chancery Court, they're pleading with a judge to order the Tennessee Department of Correction to switch off an implanted defibrillation device, similar to a pacemaker, just before Byron Black's execution.
If the judge agrees, this could potentially postpone the execution until the state finds someone willing to carry out the deactivation.
Simultaneously, at the state Supreme Court level, they're seeking an order for a lower court to consider their argument that Black is unfit to be executed.
General challenge
The lawyers have also lodged a general challenge against the state's new execution protocol, but with a trial set for 2026, any decision there will be too late for Black, reports the Mirror US.
Black was found guilty in the 1988 shooting deaths of his girlfriend Angela Clay, 29, and her two daughters, Latoya, 9, and Lakeisha, 6.
Prosecutors claimed Black was in a jealous fury when he shot the three at their home.
At the time, Black was on work-release while serving a sentence for shooting and injuring Clay's estranged husband.
Execution postponed
Black has already had three execution dates postponed, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a pause on all executions from Gov. Bill Lee after it was discovered that the Department of Correction wasn't testing the execution drugs for potency and purity as required.
Black's legal team has previously attempted, without success, to argue that his execution would be unconstitutional due to his intellectual disability.
New bid
In a fresh approach, they now contend that Black's competence for execution should be evaluated under older English common law standards. The state rebuts this, asserting that Black does not meet the criteria for incompetency as he comprehends his conviction, impending execution, and the connection between them.
In a separate move, Black's lawyers are petitioning another court to decree that his implanted cardioverter-defibrillator must be switched off just prior to the execution. They propose that if left active, the device will repeatedly attempt to restart his heart, prolonging the execution and causing Black unnecessary suffering.
Given that most medical professionals refuse to partake in executions - viewing it as a breach of medical ethics - it could potentially be a lengthy and challenging process to find someone willing to deactivate the device to facilitate Black's execution. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for 14 July.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
JAMnews
2 hours ago
- JAMnews
Former Armenian defense minister may face criminal charges
Criminal prosecution against Seyran Ohanyan The Armenian parliament spent several hours debating whether to lift the parliamentary immunity of opposition 'Hayastan' bloc deputies Seyran Ohanyan and Artsvik Minasyan. The motion was submitted by prosecutor general Anna Vardapetyan. No decision was reached, and the discussion will continue on July 7. Lawmakers will vote by secret ballot. If the parliament agrees to lift their immunity, criminal prosecution will begin against both deputies. Both lawmakers previously held ministerial positions under the former government. Seyran Ohanyan is a former defense minister, and Artsvik Minasyan is a former minister of environment. The cases against them are interconnected. Prosecutor general Anna Vardapetyan stated that Ohanyan abused his official position by illegally building a private home in a specially protected natural area. Furthermore, he allegedly concealed this property—valued at around 125 million drams (approximately $325,000)—from his annual asset declarations. Artsvik Minasyan, according to the prosecutor general, was aware of the illegal construction. As chair of a ministry commission, he presented the private property as an investment project of the environment ministry, effectively providing legal cover for the unauthorized construction. Here's a media-style English translation of your sentence: Thus, legal grounds were created for the unauthorized construction. 'The investment project served as a legal disguise for an already committed illegal act, which they attempted to present as legitimate,' Vardapetyan said. Following the tender process, the lease and construction rights for the land plot were transferred for 25 years to a relative of Seyran Ohanyan's driver. However, the house does not officially exist in property records. Minasyan maintains that the tender process was not formal and that the ministry of environment had no authority to investigate personal connections between the bidders. The prosecutor general stressed that these are serious crimes, with the statute of limitations still valid. The court will determine the punishment, which could include imprisonment. Opposition factions 'Hayastan' and 'I have honor' boycotted the discussion on Ohanyan's immunity, arguing that it is unlawful to proceed in his absence. Under parliamentary rules, such proceedings can take place only if a deputy's absence is deemed unjustified. The parliamentary speaker stated that Ohanyan's absence could not be considered justified, as he had not submitted any medical documents regarding his health condition. Regarding Artsvik Minasyan, opposition deputies described the process as 'political persecution.' Deputy Taguhi Tovmasyan said Minasyan is being accused of actions that were beyond his legal powers—specifically, whether to demolish or legalize the construction. All sides' perspectives on the case will continue to unfold. Former defense minister built mansion in protected area The case concerns land belonging to the state-run 'Sevan National Park.' According to Armenian law, private ownership is prohibited in this and other specially protected areas. The law also bans major construction projects in such locations. 'Only temporary infrastructure related to sports, recreation, or entertainment is allowed in areas with this status. In other words, projects must serve the public good and benefit everyone. Building a private, fenced residence is strictly prohibited,' prosecutor general Anna Vardapetyan explained. She stated that the value of the illegal construction on the seized land is estimated at around 125 million drams (approximately $328,000). Construction took place between 2010 and 2015 without proper permits. Initially, two applicants submitted bids for the project tender—both reportedly affiliated with Seyran Ohanyan. The repair and reconstruction of the property's swimming pool and sauna were carried out by Sitta Group LLC, a company selected through a defense ministry tender. According to the prosecutor, the son of the company's owner, Grigor Barseghyan, worked at the ministry of defense at the time. He headed the production and technical department of the defense ministry's construction and housing division. Law enforcement authorities found that the defense ministry ultimately did not pay the company for the work. 'The actual owner of Sitta Group LLC, Levon Barseghyan, realizing his company's dependence on Seyran Ohanyan and Ashot Grigoryan [head of the ministry's construction department], and aware that his son worked under Grigoryan's supervision, did not demand the 58 million dram [$152,000] payment, hoping for illegal advantages in future procurement processes,' stated the prosecution's report submitted to parliament. In addition, from 2011 to 2016, the military police provided security for the property, with their salaries—amounting to at least 13.12 million drams (around $34,000)—paid from the defense ministry budget. The prosecutor general said this also constitutes abuse of power. Moreover, the mansion was not included in official records of illegal property subject to confiscation, as it 'does not exist' in official documentation. 'The mansion exists in reality. But in the documents and in the cadastral registry, it does not. Only the land plot is registered, and its listed value is dozens of times lower—just 3 million drams (less than $8,000),' Vardapetyan noted. It is confirmed that the owner of this property is Ohanyan According to the prosecutor general, ownership of the property is confirmed by witness testimonies and search records. She noted that the electricity and gas utility accounts for the house are registered under the name of Seyran Ohanyan's mother-in-law. Ohanyan himself has not denied links to the property. 'Ohanyan admits using the property but has not explained how he financed its construction. He claims it was built using his own funds and savings,' Vardapetyan said. Another former minister accused of abusing power According to prosecutor general Anna Vardapetyan, former minister of environment Artsvik Minasyan admitted during his testimony that he was aware the land plot in question was not vacant. 'The chair of the environmental tender commission, fully aware that an unauthorized structure existed on the site, tells the government that there is no such structure and proposes launching an investment project,' she said. The prosecutor concluded that, in doing so, Minasyan abused his official position. 'The abuse lies in the fact that a private property was presented as an investment project. As a result, the state budget received no revenue. At most, property tax could have been collected—but only if the illegal construction had been legalized. And anyone with basic legal knowledge won't legalize an unauthorized structure in a specially protected area. That's why it was presented as an investment project for a 25-year period,' Vardapetyan explained. Minasyan: 'I acted in the public interest' Unlike Seyran Ohanyan, Artsvik Minasyan attended the parliamentary discussions. After the prosecutor general's remarks, he stated that either Vardapetyan had not been properly briefed or she had not reviewed the case thoroughly. 'They are accusing me of actions that, from a legal perspective, cannot be attributed to me,' he said. The lawmaker argued that claims suggesting the tender was merely a formality were false. He stressed that the body he headed was not required to verify ties between tender participants. 'I not only didn't know who had built the structure, I also didn't know whether Mr. Ohanyan was connected to it. I simply stated that, according to the information provided to me, Ohanyan was using the property,' Minasyan explained. He insisted that he had not exceeded his authority and acted in the public interest. He rejected the accusations and claimed that the process was aimed at discrediting him. 'This wasn't about group interests or personal gain. If there had been such an interest, I would admit it. There was none. I acted in the interest of the public and environmental protection,' Minasyan declared. Ohanyan: 'The goal is to distract the public from real threats' According to PM Seyran Ohanyan, the motion was submitted to parliament during his excused absence due to health issues. He claims that Article 108, Clause 3 of the National Assembly's Rules of Procedure was violated. According to this clause, the matter can be discussed without the deputy only if their absence from the session is considered unexcused. 'On July 1, I sent a letter to the Speaker of the National Assembly stating that I would be unable to attend the extraordinary session, as I have been undergoing rehabilitation treatment since June 27. The treatment is ongoing. The letter was accompanied by a medical certificate,' Ohanyan said. The former defense minister believes that a 'show' is being orchestrated around him and his colleagues, serving two purposes: 'to distract public attention from the severe threats to our state created by their own actions, in coordination with Azerbaijani authorities, to systematically neutralize all political, public, military figures, philanthropists, and clergy who stand for Artsakh, Armenia, the survival of the Armenian people, and its spiritual values.' 'These people are aiming their weapons at the nation' — deputy speaker 'You cannot have a strong army when its leadership is busy building private mansions, saunas, and swimming pools at the expense of the army, national parks, and the people,' said deputy speaker of parliament Hakob Arshakyan. He reminded that the defense ministry's construction department is responsible for building military barracks, trenches, and infrastructure for soldiers—not for constructing private estates for ministers. 'This is exactly what systemic corruption looked like—the kind from which the Armenian people were freed by the 2018 revolution. Now, society wants, can, and has the will to build an Armenia where citizens live under a fair system, feel happy, and are masters of their own country. That is why these people—the former authorities—are now trying to turn their weapons against the people and the legitimate government. We won't allow it,' he said, referring to the recently uncovered coup plot. Follow us – Twitter | Facebook | Instagram Criminal prosecution against Seyran Ohanyan
Leader Live
4 hours ago
- Leader Live
Palestine Action terror ban comes into force after late-night legal action fails
It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage. In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Earlier that day Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight. The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
Powys County Times
5 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Palestine Action terror ban comes into force after late-night legal action fails
A ban against Palestine Action has come into force, designating it as a terror group after a late-night legal bid to delay it failed. It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage. In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Earlier that day Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight. The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.
