Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Christopher Zoukis
Author of Education Behind Bars: A Win-Win Strategy for Maximum Security
Author of Education Behind Bars: A Win-Win Strategy for Maximum Security

Christopher's interests
View all
Christopher's posts

Post is pinned.Post has attachment
Interested in the new book about how to survive in #federal #prison? It's available on Amazon.

Post has shared content
Immigrants Do Not Increase Crime, Research Shows
A group of criminologists show the claim of a link is false

Post has shared content

Post has attachment
The Wheaton Institute's Colson #Scholarship program for #prisoners: a great way to reduce #recidivism.

Post has attachment
#Inmates in the state are given numerous #educational and other learning opportunities that help improve their chances of successful re-entry.

Post has attachment
Robert Haertel is a good friend of author and prison activist Christoper #Zoukis. Haertel, a #lawyer, does a good amount of #probono work in his community. He is asking for some help. You can read more here.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
“Having the power of complex thought changes the way that people can exist in the world.”

Constitutional Amendment Ensures Executions will Continue in Oklahoma

By Christopher Zoukis

Despite a number of botched executions in recent years – which drew widespread criticism for subjecting condemned prisoners to cruel lethal injection practices – Oklahomans have voted to add a provision to the state constitution enshrining and ensuring the state’s ability to put people to death in whatever manner it sees fit.

The constitutional amendment, approved by 67 percent of voters on November 8, 2016, states that “any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution,” and that no method of execution employed by the state “[shall be] deemed to be, or constitute, the infliction of cruel or unusual punishments.”

Ironically, as the infliction of “cruel and unusual” punishment is expressly forbidden under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Oklahoma amendment appears to be an attempt at self-inoculation on the part of a state plagued with a seeming inability to kill prisoners in a non-cruel and unusual way.

As reported by Al Jazeera in September 2016, drawing on data provided by the Death Penalty Information Center, Oklahoma has executed 112 prisoners since 1990. As such, it is the state with the highest per-capita execution rate, and second in total execution numbers only to Texas. With the November 2016 amendment, Oklahoma became the first state in the nation to codify the death penalty in its constitution.

However, in its pursuit of enforcing the death penalty, the state has made a mess of things. In April 2014, Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) officials botched the execution of Clayton Lockett, who protractedly writhed on the execution gurney and groaned before finally dying. [See: PLN, Oct. 2015, p.44].

During Lockett’s execution, prison staff restricted what witnesses and the media could see. On August 25, 2014, the ACLU and the ACLU of Oklahoma filed suit against prison officials over their handling of Lockett’s execution. Brought on behalf of The Guardian and the Oklahoma Observer, and two journalists employed by those publications, the lawsuit alleged the ODOC had violated the First Amendment and Oklahoma constitution by denying the public and press the right to witness government proceedings, including public executions.

“Our lawsuit asks the court to recognize the media and other witnesses’ First Amendment right to view executions without interruption, from when the condemned enters the execution chamber until the execution has concluded,” the ACLU explained. “We also ask that the court ensure Oklahoma authorities take steps to protect this right.”

The lawsuit was dismissed by a federal district court in December 2014. See: Oklahoma Observer v. Patton, U.S.D.C. (W.D. Okla.), Case No. 5:14-cv-00905-HE. In the meantime, the ODOC had enacted even more restrictive regulations for media access to executions, cutting the number of media observers from 12 to 5.

In January 2015 the ODOC botched another execution, of prisoner Charles Fredrick Warner. Warner was administered incorrect lethal injection drugs and was quoted as saying “[m]y body is on fire” before dying 18 minutes later. [See: PLN, Sept. 2016, p.52].

The Warner execution led Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin to order a halt to capital punishment in the state after admitting prison officials used the wrong drugs.

Fallin’s admission followed the release of a report by the state Office of the Chief Medical Examiner that found potassium acetate, not potassium chloride, had been used to put Warner to death, contradicting the official prison execution log. Experts interviewed by the Oklahoman newspaper said that using potassium acetate could significantly lengthen the time it takes to stop a prisoner’s heart and cause his or her death.

Oklahoma uses a three-drug procedure that is intended to render a prisoner unconscious, applying midazolam as a sedative and rocuronium bromide as a paralytic, before injecting potassium chloride to stop the prisoner’s heart. In Warner’s case, medical examiners found that while syringes used in the execution were labeled “potassium chloride,” the vials used to fill the syringes were labeled “single dose Potassium Acetate injection.”

The distinction between the two drugs is significant. The state-mandated potassium chloride is somewhat quickly absorbed by the body, in part because its pH level is considerably lower than that of blood, said Dr. Mohamed Joliah with Creighton University’s Center for Drug Information and Evidence Based Practice. Potassium acetate takes longer to be absorbed and a larger dose of the drug would be needed to achieve the same effect, he stated.

Robert Bachman, a chemistry professor at the University of the South in Tennessee, said failing to account for the difference between the drugs could make the potassium acetate less effective. The Death Penalty Information Center noted that potassium acetate had not been used in any previous execution in the U.S.

Whether the use of the wrong drug delayed Warner’s death is uncertain.

Still, the state’s erroneous record-keeping in the Warner case concerned Dale Baich, an attorney representing Oklahoma death row prisoners. “We cannot trust Oklahoma to get it right or tell the truth. We will explore this in detail through the discovery process in [ ] federal litigation,” he said.

Yet the state did not reform its ways following Governor Fallin’s suspension of executions, which turned out to be short-lived. Oklahoma attempted to execute Richard Glossip several times in 2015, finally abandoning the effort when it was realized, during the third attempt, that the ODOC had once again obtained incorrect lethal injection drugs.

With the final Glossip stay of execution, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt announced that he would not seek any further executions until the conclusion of a grand jury investigation and adoption of new protocols. Glossip currently remains on death row.

However, with the amendment of the state’s constitution relative to capital punishment, the ODOC may be encouraged to pursue new forms of execution. One such alternative, advocated by some death penalty proponents, is asphyxiation using nitrogen gas.

After all, what could go wrong with trying a new, untested execution method?

Sources:,,,,, Oklahoman

This article originally appeared in Prison Legal News on January 10, 2017.

Post has attachment
Jail Official Convicted of Illegally Recording Phone Conversations Loses Appeal

By Christopher Zoukis

A former high-ranking official at a New Jersey county jail, convicted on federal charges for illegally listening to and recording the private phone conversations of jail union leaders, has lost his appeal and will remain in federal prison.

Kirk Eady, 46, of East Brunswick, New Jersey, was convicted in March 2015 on charges of illegal interception of wire, oral or electronic communications of others. On September 10, 2015 he was sentenced to 21 months in prison plus three years of supervised release.

Eady appealed, seeking to overturn his conviction and sentence on the grounds of inappropriate application of sentencing guidelines, inappropriate use of a government witness as an “expert” and improper jury instructions. His appeal was rejected by the Third Circuit on May 4, 2016.

According to the criminal complaint, Eady was a deputy director at the Hudson County Correctional Facility and represented the county in labor negotiations with unions representing guards and other employees at the jail. From March to July 2012, Eady intercepted conversations between several members of the union who, according to court documents, had criticized Eady’s work performance.

He had intercepted the calls by using an online prank service known as “Evil Operator,” which, for a small fee, allowed users to call, listen to and record parties at different phone numbers by calling both and making it appear as though they called each other. Eady accessed the “Evil Operator” website at least 12 times to place calls to union members and another person who had posted unflattering articles about Eady. He then “retaliated against the union members by changing their work schedules, placing anonymous calls to their spouses accusing them of infidelity, and registering one of them as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.”

His illegal interceptions of the calls were discovered after jail guard Latania Freeman, who described herself and Eady as “best friends,” informed the FBI that Eady had told her about the scheme and played one of the recordings for her on his cell phone. Freeman then agreed to allow the FBI to record her conversations with Eady, in which he laid out in detail how he had committed the illicit phone calls and recordings.

At trial, Eady’s defense attorney, Peter Willis, argued that his client could not be convicted of illegally intercepting the conversations because Evil Operator allowed the user to participate in the recorded phone calls if they wanted to, thereby making him a “party” to the calls. Federal law holds that, in order for a phone conversation to be legally recorded, only one party to the call needs to consent to the recording.

Federal prosecutors rebutted that defense by arguing the legality of secretly recording the conversations of other people using such a method defied common sense as well as privacy laws and expectations.

In his appeal, among other claims, Eady argued the jury was improperly instructed as to the definition of “party,” reasserting his belief that he had been, by virtue of his surreptitious role, a party to the phone calls he had recorded. The Third Circuit upheld the district court’s determination that spying does not equate to being a party to a conversation, and also rejected Eady’s challenge to a two-level sentencing enhancement he received for abuse of a position of trust. See: United States v. Eady, 648 Fed.Appx. 188 (3d Cir. 2016).


This article originally appeared in Prison Legal News on January 10, 2017.
Wait while more posts are being loaded