Ohio Death Row Inmate Given One-Week Reprieve After Officials Fail to Find a Vein

art.ohio.executionRomell Broom, 52, was given a rare one-week reprieve when officials struggled for hours to find a vein strong enough to handle lethal injection. The scene was particularly grotesque for critics of the death penalty as Broom awaited his death for hours as he was pricked and probed. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland eventually ordered the one-week delay to allow prison officials time to figure out the best vein to use to execute him.

Broom was convicted of raping and fatally stabbing a 14-year-old girl in East Cleveland, Ohio, in 1984. Broom reportedly tried to help the prison staff find a vein in his own execution.

The defense moved quickly when Broom’s lawyer in prison, Adele Shank (a particularly apt name for a prisoner lawyer), notified co-counsel Tim Sweeney that they could not find a vein at the Lucasville facility. They did an excellent job in moving to seek a termination of the procedure.

For some, this brings up memories of problems in May 2006 when Ohio officials took 90 minutes to find a vein in the execution of Joseph Clark, who was heard pleading with the officials “It don’t work.”

Then in 2007, officials in Ohio took two hours to find a vein for Christopher Newton’s execution.

These botched executions are often cited as magnifying the cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. However, courts have rejected such claims in the past and find that the state cannot anticipate every eventuality. Yet, Ohio’s persistent difficulties raise some question as to whether the state is less competent in executions or whether other states are less careful. The possibility of a vein not functioning fully can cause a horrific outcome where the inmate is not fully sedated and not given sufficient lethal doses to ensure rapid death.

I have previously written about the problem associated with lethal injection, here.

For the full story, click here.

147 thoughts on “Ohio Death Row Inmate Given One-Week Reprieve After Officials Fail to Find a Vein”

  1. Slickone, it is GO Blue. Michigan knocked off E. Michigan 45-17. Slickone, who do you think wins the Texas Tech- Texas game in Austin. I smell upset guys….

  2. Lil Billy,

    Maybe the luck of the Irish be up on ya. Go State. Ok, I guess that Go Blow or is that how you spell Go Blew?

  3. billy,

    You are new here and we have had several others who started out as you did, but who progressed to become valued regular posters to the fine blawg. Their principles did not change, although their debating skills grew markedly to the extent that we anticipate their participation in all threads.

    There are many fine, intelligent people here who are skilled debaters. If you are open-minded enough to accept fair criticism, you will soon learn as much as I have from them.

  4. JT’s got the best law blog goin’. Great group of thinkers. Now back to Michigan state and Notre Dame. Go Blue!

  5. My apologies to all, JT, Federal LLEO, Mespo and Buddha and all those I have offended. I was quite uncharitable to you gentlemen, have a super saturday and enjoy the football..

  6. Oh almost forgot this one. Getting a Divorce in Tennessee and finding out that she is still your sister.

  7. Satire= the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

    Like the following:

    KC Royals stealing the paycheck instead of home plate.

    George H. W. Bush being in a room alone and he being the smartest person in the room.

    Like a Dick Cheney moving back to Montana from Maryland and by doing so he raised the IQ of Both.

    Now what Irony is not:

    Catching your farm hand on a date with your prize heifer;

    Steak cooked on a gas grill;

    A 1 1/2″ Steak cooked more than 5 minutes on wood burning fire pit.

    The above are abominations against man kind.


  8. FFLEO,

    No issue with any of that. I merely wanted a clarification. The hard satire is often an unwieldy tool. I have my reasons for wanting to master it and none of them are germane to this conversation. I know I have a sharp tongue and usually I’m pretty good at gauging the “amount of force” I use. Satire is a blade with an edge as well as a useful flat. To learn to use both features in concert to best advantage it is best to master them individually (or that’s my methodology anyway). That being said I know I am far from perfect. I also know I’ve gone too far purposefully to prove a point in the past and that is something I personally have resolved to refrain from in the future. I’ve poked at the line enough to know broad parameters. As I said, the question was in the spirit of avoiding issues. I have no desire to cross the line through misadventure. I’m not asking for any other reason than clarification. I have no present complaint. My motivations in re the Prof’s rule are no more complicated than that. I’m trying to be a good citizen via premptive strike. And as always I thank you for your valuable input. The blog was a poorer place in your absence.

  9. Buddha, see up-thread** for what I consider an uncivil thread filled with ad hominem attacks and outrageous claims (although I am *not* requesting its removal unless billy continues ad nauseam).

    1, September 18, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    Buddha, I suggest that you employ hard satire against whomever you choose; however, as a cyber-friend, I think you are best at using biting, direct, reasoned debate without any ad hominem attacks. Let Professor Turley determine who is violating *his* civility rules—as he did recently, which I think that was an example of just cause—while continuing with your satirical comments that are fact-based, but especially continue with your topic research and logical debates .

    I like good satire and witticisms, I do not want to see too much censorship, and I think most of us know the difference between satires and outright biased, untenable attacks. Some people deserve ridicule and we see that all the time with Professor Turley’s posts.

    Therefore, we must respect Prof. T’s request and take the time to send him an e-mail if the attacks become too personal. I do not plan to take that route because I do not want to consume anymore of his valuable time. As we all know, avoidance of posts containing attacks is most often the best policy; other than rebuttals/refutations based on fact.

    Finally, I think that after a month’s absence, anyone must receive the rights of redemption.

  10. It’s neither trap nor tarp.

    It’s merely a clarification.

    You Texans. I swear. Did you see that article on the Austin PD looking to go after online critics? What’s up with that?

  11. Somebody got in trouble.

    Nah nah na na nana. Don’t make it too rough and have the good professor throw you in the trap at the end of the dark hole. Oh, wait a minute you could probably be entitled to protection under the Bush program called TRAP or was that TARP?

    I would check with your attorney to see if you have any other rights. You may have protection under the ADA. Condoms are not required butt recommended.

    This is not a solicitation for business and is to be used for informational purposes only. It is not directed to anyone in particular unless you are Terry aka Hulk Hogan and have any money left.

    Then please do call my office of Dewey, Cheetham and Howe. Located in a Jurisdiction close to you and you may make the 3.5 million retainer check payable to Howe, Dewey Cheetham, so quickly. Both Professional 501-3-C tax exempt entities.

    We do have a sharp Tax attorney in upper NY. Who uses our sister related entity in NJ.

    Civility Monitor

  12. Prof.,

    One lives to be of service. I’ll never complain about refinement. If giving up a small part of my fun in tormenting trolls is part of the cost in refining the very civility rule I asked to be enforced in different circumstance, it’s a price I’ll gladly pay. In that spirit, I’ll ask for a clarification in advance.

    Directly insulting trolls is out, but as a fine line distinction, are there any other restrictions on indirect ridicule that may come about in humorously ridiculing their positions, e.g. plays on screen names like “bdarube” or when the counter is against something/some subject that some might consider personal and off limits while others may not, the prime example being the wide variety of religious practices often on display here and subject to debate. Just curious. Practicing aikido – the best way to avoid trouble is not to be there when it starts.


    That’s quite an active imagination you have there.

  13. I’ll play nice. You regulars should play nice also. You are quick to refer to people as “racists” and resort to vitriol and invective when it suits your argument.. let’s stick to the facts, I respect JT and his blog. My bad….

    1. Billy and BIL,

      I appreciate your cooperation. If any of the regulars feel that someone is violating the civility rule, they should email me rather than start of thread of taunts back and forth.

  14. I would so love to debate you on-on-one buddha. You are a weak sister, I would make mincemeat out of you….

  15. Prof.,

    I take your point. If you’re tightening the rule to include trolls, I’ll comply.

  16. Billy:

    I have deleted three posts from you, particularly in personal attacks on BIL. Please comply with our civility rule. We do not welcome personal taunts or attacks on this site.

  17. No, little billy-troll. I was just making sure you got outted for real since you insisted on using the term Buddhapest again and showing your hand. So lame you can’t even come up with a new (or better) taunt than that, huh? Please. It’s nice to see you are still going to useyourhead, useyourhead. The really interesting choice is that you’ve chosen to use it as a suppository.

    I just think you’re stupid. A rebel without a clue.

    It’s really that simple.

    But if you run along and play with the other minnows, you might (might) survive the natural selection process to become an adult troll. Here, you’re just going to be a snack or ignored as a small fry.

Comments are closed.