Alabama criminal defense attorneys have been very concerned about the use of unapproved ingredients in lethal injections. A lawsuit that has just been filed against the Food and Drug Administration seeks to block the importation of the ingredient, sodium thiopental, used in lethal injections. The ingredient was earlier manufactured in the US, but has been in short supply over the past few years because the company that used to manufacture the ingredient has stopped producing it.

The lawsuit has been filed by an attorney in a federal court in Washington on behalf of death row inmates in California, Tennessee and Arizona. According to the lawsuit, the Food and Drug Administration has quietly allowed state corrections officials to import the sodium thiopental, in spite of the fact that the imported ingredient has not been approved by the agency. Since the drug went into short supply, states around the country have been using their own methods to deal with the shortage. For instance, several states have delayed executions. However, other states including California have begun importing the ingredient from suppliers in England. Nebraska has recently imported the ingredient from an Indian company. None of these overseas suppliers are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In fact, there are no sodium thiopental suppliers overseas that are approved by the FDA.

It is inhumane that the FDA allows state correction agencies to import an unapproved ingredient in lethal injections, and allows it to be used on death row inmates. The agency has a duty to make sure that a sedative is a safe for use, regardless of whether the sedative is being used for surgery on a patient, or is being used as part of a lethal injection. The agency seems to be adopting a cavalier attitude towards the pain-and-suffering of death row inmates, by allowing states to use unapproved sodium thiopental unchecked.

This isn't the kind of defense that you would find an Alabama criminal defense attorney mounting every day. An accident expert in a fatal bicycle accident in Colorado is claiming that the motorist dozed off because he was overpowered by the smell of his new car.

The motorist, Martin Joel Erzinger, was driving his new Mercedes-Benz when he apparently lost consciousness along the way, and struck a bicyclist. The bicyclist sustained fatal injuries. Erzinger allegedly drove away from the scene of the accident.

According to a defense accident expert, the Mercedes-Benz was about one month old, and had that much-loved new car smell. This smell overpowered Erzinger, causing him to lose consciousness. The attorneys claim that Erzinger suffered from sleep apnea, and dozed off while driving just before he hit the bicyclist. The expert also claims that toxic gases from the new car smell seeped into the driver's compartment, and could possibly have had harmful effects on the driver.

There have been plenty of criticism about this defense, but it isn't as far-fetched as it seems. The health risks from the peculiar smell of a new car have been documented in the past. At least one study has confirmed that the fumes from the upholstery and interior of a new car can be a toxic health hazard. This is especially so if the car windows are shut at the time.

The peculiar smell that combines plastic, wood and leather all rolled into one, is the result of the reaction of several organic compounds. These fumes have been linked to throat irritation, and even cancer. It's not so far-fetched to an Alabama criminal defense lawyer to assume that the fumes could be overpowering enough to cause a person, already susceptible to sleep apnea, to doze off at the wheel.

An investigation by USA Today has revealed more than 200 cases of prosecutorial misconduct, where prosecutors engaged in deceptive practices, including covering up evidence, helping to put innocent people in prison and letting the guilty go free. 

The USA Today investigation documented at least 201 criminal cases from across the country since 1997.  That year, Congress enacted a law that was aimed at ending prosecutorial abuse.  The USA Today investigation points at some of the country's most elite prosecutors from the Justice Department, who have committed ethics violations.  Just a few examples of the misconduct include lying to judges and juries, hiding evidence, and breaking plea-bargains.  Some of these transgressions were so serious that judges were forced to throw out charges and reverse convictions. 

Many of these instances of prosecutorial misconduct occurred in California, as the report shows.  However, in many of these cases, the prosecutors got away with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.  In one instance where prosecutorial misconduct led to a man being wrongfully imprisoned for three years, losing his job and his house in the process, the prosecutors were made to participate in a one-day workshop on ethics.  That was the extent of their punishment.

As scary as this scenario is, it may only be the tip of the iceberg.  Most cases of prosecutorial misconduct are never exposed.  The number of cases that are tainted by such abuse actually number more than the cases that actually come to light.  It takes intense scrutiny by Alabama criminal defense lawyers and judges to point out the abuse of power by many prosecutors, and most cases simply fall under the radar. 

In 2005, prosecutors in Washington DC had evidence that two men could have committed a crime, but instead they allowed two other men to be convicted, and sentenced to two decades in prison.  In Arizona, a woman was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted in a bank robbery, because prosecutors neglected to mention the fact that there had been another woman meeting her description in the same area, robbing banks.

The Sentencing Commission recently issued its proposed amendments implementing the statutory changes regarding crack cocaine offenses and directives regarding drug trafficking offenses generally set forth in the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. The notice and comment period for the proposed amendments is 30 days, to accommodate the Act's mandate that the Commission promulgate temporary amendments by November 1, 2010.