18 March 2016 :

The Ohio Supreme Court decided that the state can try again to put to death Rommell Broom, whose 2009 botched execution was called off after 2 hours.
The court by a 4-3 vote rejected arguments by Broom, whose attorneys said giving the state prisons agency a 2nd chance would amount to cruel and unusual punishment and double jeopardy. Prosecutors had argued double jeopardy doesn't apply because lethal drugs never entered Broom's veins while executioners unsuccessfully tried to hook up an IV.
Ohio prosecutors said the evidence shows that the state wasn't deliberately trying to hurt Broom and that 20 successful executions since 2009 mean such an event couldn't happen again.
With a federal appeal of the ruling likely, a 2nd execution is years away. In addition, Ohio already has more than 2 dozen death row inmates with firm execution dates but no lethal drugs to put them to death with. The court majority held that a second execution attempt would not violate constitutional protections against twice placing a defendant in jeopardy of life, nor constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Ohio first tried to execute Broom on September 15, 2009, but the attempt was called off after two hours of unsuccessful efforts by executioners to establish a viable IV line. Despite attempting to insert the IV in 18 different sites on Broom's arms and legs, prison personnel failed to find a suitable vein, and in one case instead struck bone. Justice Judith Lanzinger, writing for the majority, said the event was not a failed execution because setting the IV line was only a "preliminary step" to an execution and the execution itself "commences when the lethal drug enters the IV line." The majority reasoned that "because the attempt did not proceed to the point of injection of a lethal drug into the IV line, jeopardy never attached."
The court denied Broom an evidentiary hearing on his claim that a second execution attempt would constitute cruel and unsual punishment, assuming that prison personnel would this time adhere to the state's execution protocol. It wrote: "Strict compliance with the protocol will ensure that executions are carried out in a constitutional manner and can also prevent or reveal an inmate’s attempt to interfere with the execution process. We simply are unable to conclude that Broom has established that the state in carrying out a second attempt is likely to violate its protocol and cause severe pain." Justice Judith French dissented, saying, "The majority’s decision to deny Romell Broom an evidentiary hearing on his Eighth Amendment claim is wrong on the law, wrong on the facts, and inconsistent in its reasoning. If the state cannot explain why the Broom execution went wrong, then the state cannot guarantee that the outcome will be different next time."
Broom's attorneys said they intend to seek further review in other courts.
On December 2, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously rejected a suit filed by attorneys representing Broom that he be removed from Death Row because the state tried unsuccessfully to execute him 15 months earlier. The suit contended that Broom's constitutional rights were violated and that he suffered "unnecessary pain, suffering and distress" when attempts to execute him on Sept. 15, 2009.
Broom's attorneys argued the state did not have properly trained personnel on the execution team, failed to follow its own protocols, and had no backup plan. "It was a form of torture that exposed Broom to the prospect of a slow, lingering death, not the quick and painless one he was promised and to which he was constitutionally entitled," the lawsuit said. His attorneys asked that his death sentence be overturned and that Broom be released from Death Row and sent to the general prison population.
Broom is under a death sentence for abducting and murdering Tryna Middleton on Sept. 21, 1984.