1 The State of Ohio, )
2 County of Lorain ) SS:
3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
4 THE STATE OF OHIO, )
Plaintiff; )
5 vs ) No 04CR065940
RUBEN O RIVERA, )
6 Defendant )
7 THE STATE OF OHIO, )
Plaintiff; )
8 vs ) No 05CR068067
)
9 RONALD McCLOUD, )
Defendant )
10 ***
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
11 MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 - VOLUME I
APPEARANCES:
12 Appearing on behalf of the State of Ohio:
Lorain County Prosecutor's Office,
13 Dennis P Will, Lorain County Prosecutor, by
Anthony D Cillo, Assistant County Prosecutor
14 and
Billie Jo Belcher, Assistant County Prosecutor;
15
Appearing on behalf of the State of Ohio,
16 Marc Dann, Ohio Attorney General, by
Stephen E Maher, Assistant Attorney General;
17
Appearing on behalf of the State of Ohio,
18 Ohio Department of Corrections, by
Gregory Trout, Chief Legal Counsel;
19
Appearing on behalf of Defendant Ruben Rivera:
20 Kreig Brusnahan, Esq
and
21 American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, by
Jeffrey M Gamso, Esq;
22
Appearing on behalf of Defendant Ronald McCloud:
23 Daniel G Wightman, Esq
and
24 American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, by
Jeffrey M Gamso, Esq
25 ALSO PRESENT: Milagros Pepple, Translator
1
1 The State of Ohio, )
2 County of Lorain ) SS:
3
4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
5 THE STATE OF OHIO, )
Plaintiff; )
6 vs ) No 04CR065940
RUBEN O RIVERA, )
7 Defendant )
8 THE STATE OF OHIO, )
Plaintiff; )
9 vs ) No 05CR068067
)
10 RONALD McCLOUD, )
Defendant )
11
***
12
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
13
MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 - VOLUME I
14
***
15
BE IT REMEMBERED, that on Monday, the 7th day of
16
April, 2008, being one of the regular days of the April
17
term of said court, before the Honorable James M Burge,
18
the Presiding Judge of said court, the above-captioned
19
causes came on for hearing upon Defendants' Motion to
20
Declare the Lethal Injection Protocol Unconstitutional
21
***
22
23
24
25
2
1 MORNING SESSION, MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008
2 ***
3 (JOINT EXHIBIT A MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION)
4 ***
5 THE COURT: Let the record reflect that we're
6 here pursuant to an adjournment last Thursday in the case
7 of State of Ohio versus Ruben Rivera, Case Number
8 04CR065940, and State of Ohio versus Ronald McCloud, Case
9 Number 05CR068067
10 The record should reflect in this case that
11 Attorney Rivera is represented by -- excuse me --
12 Defendant Rivera is represented by Attorneys Kreig
13 Brusnahan and Attorney Jeff Gamso, and that Mr McCloud is
14 represented by Attorney Gamso again, and by Attorney
15 Daniel Wightman
16 The State of Ohio is being represented today by
17 Attorney Anthony Cillo, Attorney Billie Jo Belcher,
18 Attorney Gregory Trout, and Attorney Stephen Maher All
19 are present
20 I note, as well, that Mrs Milagros Pepple is
21 here to do the translation, the verbatim translation from
22 English to Spanish, for the benefit of Mr Rivera
23 And Mr Lieux, as well, who also represents Ruben
24 Rivera, is observing
25 I don't think I've left anybody out All are
3
1 present
2 I'd like to begin, today we'll be proceeding with
3 the presentation of testimony, as I understand it, by
4 Dr Mark Heath, who is a witness that will be called on
5 behalf of the defense
6 I'm informed, Attorney Cillo, that you will be
7 doing the cross-examination for the State of Ohio
8 MR CILLO: That's correct, Your Honor
9 THE COURT: And doing the direct examination,
10 will that be you, Attorney Gamso?
11 MR GAMSO: Yes, Your Honor, that will be me
12 THE COURT: All right I want to say initially
13 that I promised the parties that I'm going to furnish a
14 courtroom, or try to furnish a courtroom, that is
15 information friendly I can promise the parties and the
16 participants that I will not engage in a display similar
17 to the one last week You're all entitled to better than
18 that
19 But I want us to remember too, please, let's keep
20 this in mind, that the death penalty is the law of the
21 land, and it doesn't matter what our particular feelings
22 might be about it It's -- it is as entrenched in
23 American jurisprudence, more entrenched, than the -- than
24 even the notion of a woman's right to choose, which has
25 been with us since Roe v Wade But the law approving the
4
1 death penalty in this country has been part of our
2 history We won't be changing that through the course of
3 this hearing, I don't suppose, any more than we're going
4 to have any effect on a woman's right to choose This is
5 the law
6 I think our purpose today and tomorrow, or for
7 whatever time we might need, is to determine whether our
8 particular protocol is in conformity, not with the law on
9 the death penalty -- it is -- but whether it's in
10 conformity with the federal and state constitution, and
11 our particular Ohio statute covering the subject
12 I'