Bruning asks for rehearing on electric chair

 43 comment(s)  
 E-mail Story
 Print Story
  Share

 digg it!
 Facebook
 del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit

Text Size: 

Tools Sponsor

BY CLARENCE MABIN / Lincoln Journal Star

Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said he has asked the state Supreme Court to rehear arguments in support of the electric chair — even as brushed aside statements he made in 2001 as a lawmaker that appeared to question the execution method’s constitutionality.

Bruning said at a news conference that his office requested the rehearing Tuesday, 11 days after the Supreme Court declared the electric chair cruel and unusual punishment under the Nebraska Constitution.

The 6-1 court majority upheld the death sentence of Ray Mata Jr., but put it on hold until the state adopts a constitutional method of execution.

[+]Enlarge

Jon Bruning

Jon Bruning

Mata was sentenced to death for the 1999 murder of his former girlfriend’s 3-year-old son, Adam Gomez. Prosecutors said he dismembered the boy, fed some of the remains to a dog and kept some in the home to intimidate the mother.

Bruning called Mata the “worst of the worst” and said he deserves to die.

“Nebraskans care about the victims and their families, and not about whether inmates feel 15 seconds of pain,” he said.

In a brief filed in support of the rehearing, Bruning argued the court majority strayed from the historic precedent that presumes laws are constitutional. He said the majority ignored the presumption established 130 years ago.

The brief also echoed arguments Chief Justice Michael Heavican made in his dissenting opinion. Heavican, for example, said the majority abandoned precedent in holding the state constitution’s ban against cruel and unusual punishment was more restrictive than the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Bruning said the court failed to articulate a clear standard of what constitutes unnecessary and needless pain.

“What is necessary pain?” he asked at the news conference.

Bruning sought to minimize statements he made as a state senator in 2001. The statements were reprinted in a motion to the Supreme Court prepared by Omaha Sen. Ernie Chambers.

Bruning, appearing before the Judiciary Committee in March 2001, was asked by Chambers, “You personally do not think that electrocution is cruel and unusual punishment, do you?

Bruning answered: “Well, actually I do, Senator. I would prefer to move to lethal injection.”

Later in the testimony, Bruning said the courts have not said the electric chair was unconstitutional. Then he stated, “I believe personally, it is cruel, it is unusual. And it is unnecessary, and we can move to lethal injection to solve that problem.”

On Tuesday, Bruning said Chambers’ motion took the comments out of context. At the time, he said, he was comparing the electric chair to lethal injection and meant to say the former is a “crueler” form of capital punishment.

Also, he said, the 2001 comments were irrelevant to the legal arguments in his motion to the court Tuesday.

“If (Chambers) thinks he’s played some superior game of ‘gotcha,’ he’s wrong,” Bruning said.

But Chambers said he did not take Bruning’s remarks out of context.

“I would not file something with the Supreme Court that I knew was (not in context),” he said. He said Bruning apparently had not read his motion and that the attorney general apparently forgot the statements he made in 2001.

Bruning said he would likely appeal the state Supreme Court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court if the Nebraska court declines to rehear the matter.

Reach Clarence Mabin at 473-7234 or cmabin@journalstar.com.