UNBIASED - Week in Review: February 20-26, 2023

Episode Date: February 27, 2023

1. Brandon Miller, Alabama Basketball Player, Still Playing Despite Apparent Involvement in January Shooting (2:08)2. Supreme Court Decision: Helix Energy v. Hewitt: Overtime Pay Under Federal Labor Standards Act (13:23)3. Supreme Court Decision: Cruz v. Arizona: Death Penalty (20:52)4. Florida Executes Donald Dillbeck: First Florida Execution Since 2019 (25:10)All sources can be found on www.jordanismylawyer.com. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok for more content @jordanismylawyer. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Kick off an exciting football season with BetMGM, an official sportsbook partner of the National Football League. Yard after yard, down after down, the sportsbook born in Vegas gives you the chance to take action to the end zone and celebrate every highlight reel play. And as an official sportsbook partner of the NFL, BetMGM is the best place to fuel your football fandom on every game day. With a variety of exciting features,

BetMGM offers you plenty of seamless ways to jump straight onto the gridiron and to embrace peak sports action. Ready for another season of gridiron glory? What are you waiting for? Get off the bench, into the huddle, and head for the end zone all season long. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. Gambling problem? For free assistance, call the Connex Ontario helpline at 1-866-531-2600. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. You are listening to the Jordan is My Lawyer. This is your host Jordan, and I give

you the legal analysis you've been waiting for. Here's the deal. I don't care about your political views, but I do ask that you listen to the facts, have an open mind and think for yourselves. Deal? Oh, and one last thing. I'm not actually a lawyer. Welcome back to the Jordan is my lawyer podcast, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Today we are talking about four stories, but two of them are kind of combined into one. So the first story we're going to talk about is the Alabama basketball player, Brandon Miller, who has been the talk of the town lately. He was somewhat involved in a shooting, but he's still playing on Alabama's basketball team. And some people are kind of questioning why he's still being allowed to play. And there's a lot of confusion behind just the legalities of everything. So we're going to talk about that. We're going to

talk about why he hasn't been charged with a crime despite his involvement. And then we're going to talk about two Supreme Court cases that were decided just this past week, where the justices kind of split and strayed from their typical 6-3 decision making, where the conservative justices are on one side and the liberal justices are on another side, or maybe I should say right-leaning justices versus left-leaning justices, but you get the point. And then the third story we're going to talk about is the most recent execution in the United States, which took place in Florida and happened to be the first execution in Florida since 2019. Before we get into these stories, let me just remind you guys to leave me a review on whichever platform you listen on. It really

helps support my show. It really lets other people know what they're missing out on as far as my podcast and what I have to offer people. If you guys could take just a few seconds to do that, I would really appreciate it. But without further ado, let's get into today's stories. the talk in the sports world lately has really been about brandon miller and the university of alabama and whether brandon miller should still be allowed to continue playing in alabama's basketball games despite his involvement in this jan shooting. When my fiance heard this story on the many different sports newscasts and podcasts that he listens to, he called me and he told me I had to report on it because people across every outlet were confused. That's the best way to put it. They were just confused as to why he wasn't being charged, why he was still playing. And again,

just the legalities behind it, you know, what accessory in Alabama is, and why there's just not enough evidence. And then, of course, aside from the legalities, you have the moral questions, like even if he can't be charged with a crime, why is he still being allowed to play? So I'm going to do what I do best, and I'm going to break it down for you, but first we have to kind of start with the timeline of how this story kind of played out, why we're just now hearing about these recent revelations. And it really is an interesting story. And a lot of my listeners were with me when I used to do true crime episodes and you guys

loved that. So I figured this would be a good story because it kind of involves a little bit of true crime as well. So the names that you're going to hear in this story are Brandon Miller. He is a current University of Alabama basketball player. He allegedly delivered the gun to this shooting. And I will refer to him just by his last name, which is Miller. Then there's Darius Miles. He was a former University of Alabama player who was just recently taken off the team because of this shooting. You have Michael Davis, who was a former University of Alabama player who was just recently taken off the team because of this shooting.

You have Michael Davis, who was a friend of Darius Miles, and he's actually the one that pulled the trigger. And then you have Jameah Harris, who is a 23-year-old mother who died as a result of this shooting. So I will refer to everyone by their last names and the details that I am about to discuss were revealed by a Tuscaloosa detective in a pre-trial testimony just this past week. So despite the shooting happening in January, this kind of new information just came to light in this recent testimony.

So on January 15th, 2023, just this year, Brandon Miller dropped off Darius Miles and Michael Davis at a sports bar in Tuscaloosa. Darius Miles left his gun in the back seat of Miller's car. Later on in the night, Miller received a text from Miles saying, I need my joint, aka he needs his gun. Miller then drove his car to meet Miles and Davis outside of the bar across the street from where he had originally dropped them off. Miles got the gun from the backseat and handed it to Davis, who began shooting at people in a Jeep that Jameah Harris was riding in. Harris was ultimately struck and killed. So just to give you a little bit of recap, because I know these names

can kind of get confusing. Brandon Miller is the current Alabama basketball player. He has not been removed from the team. He is the one that dropped off Darius Miles and Michael Davis at the sports bar. Darius Miles was also a university of Alabama basketball player. He has since been taken off the team. He is the one who texted Brandon Miller asking for the gun. Miller then drove the gun to Miles, and that's when Miles took the gun out of the back seat, handed it to Davis, and Davis is the one who pulled the trigger. So the question becomes, was Miller an accessory to the crime? If he was an accessory, why isn't he being charged? And should he still

be playing for Alabama? Which is obviously more of a moral question, not so much a legal question, but nonetheless, we're going to talk about it. First of all, he hasn't been charged with a crime as of today. And prosecutors are saying that he won't be charged with a crime. The reason being is that they don't have enough evidence to charge him with anything. Because although, you know, I've mentioned the word accessory, the way that Alabama's statute reads as far as accessory goes is this, quote, a person is accountable for the behavior of another constituting an offense if with the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he or she aids or abets the other person in committing the offense.

So intent is the critical component here. Without intent, there is no crime. Now the statute goes on to say that a person acts intentionally when his or her purpose is to cause the result or to engage in that conduct. So while Miller may have brought Miles his gun when Miles asked for it, there's actually no evidence that proves that Miller brought Miles the gun with the purpose of causing the eventual shooting of Jamea Harris or with the purpose of engaging in an act that would kill Jamea Harris. He had to have known what that gun was going to be used for when he brought it to Miles. So to put this scenario in kind of a hypothetical that may have played out a bit differently, let's say Miller gets a text from Miles saying, quote, I need my gun, need to unload on Jamiya,

something like that, or need to unload on whoever, something to that extent. That's an entirely different story, right? That would show that Miller brought that gun to Miles knowing that Miles wanted to hurt or kill someone with the gun and Miller brought in anyway. But that's not what happened here. Miles just asked for his gun and that was it. Now the statute also clearly states that mere presence at the scene without more evidence is not sufficient to prove complicity. So mere presence isn't enough. Intent is the critical component. When the Tuscaloosa chief assistant district attorney was asked why Miller had him in charge with a crime, her response was,

there's nothing we could charge him with. Again, it's all because of that intent component. Now, Brandon Miller obviously has an attorney. He is part of this investigation, although he's not going to be charged with a crime. He's been through multiple interviews and he has been cooperating, but of course he does need an attorney. So his attorney released a statement on Wednesday saying that when Miller gave Miles a ride to Tuscaloosa that night, Miles brought his gun and left it hidden under some clothing in the backseat of Miller's car. Miller never actually saw the gun.

He never touched the gun. Allegedly, Miller was already on his way to pick up Miles from the bar when he got the text that Miles needed the gun. So his attorneys are saying like, you know, he didn't just go to Miles and Miles asked for the gun either. He was already on his way there. Miles happened to ask for the gun and it was in the car. Miller's attorney didn't dispute the fact that Miller was present when the shooting happened, but said, quote, he never got out of his vehicle or interacted with anyone in Jameah Harris's party. Miller never touched the gun. He was not involved in its exchange to Davis in any way and never knew that illegal activity involving the gun would occur. So why is this such

a big deal in the basketball world? Well, not only is Brandon Miller the best player on Alabama's team, on top of that, Alabama is set to secure a number one seed in the NCAA tournament next month. But on top of that, he's also one of the best, if not the best, NBA prospects playing college basketball this season. So he has a lot on the line. Alabama has a lot on the line. The NBA has interest in this situation. So it's safe to say that Alabama wants to keep him on the team for their own reasons.

The NBA would probably also like to see him keep up his career for their own reasons. So they're not really making any moves to take him off the team. On top of that, of course, you have the question, did he have any ill intent in this situation? The evidence would say no, but did he? I don't know. That's another question. Now the public has had their fair share to say about this. They're kind of in a sense acting like their own justice system because the reality is the court of law may not be able to bring changes, but the public is wondering how it's possible that Alabama can morally and ethically keep someone on their team that was involved in whether directly or indirectly

in the shooting and death of another human being. The legality behind this whole story boils down to intent, like I said. Was it a good idea for Miller to bring the gun to Miles? No. But without something more, without more evidence to prove that he brought that gun with the knowledge that Miles was going to use it to hurt someone, there's nothing. No criminal liability whatsoever. Now, as far as Miles and davis the two actually involved in the shooting you know the gun pulling the trigger etc they're both facing capital murder charges but the question in the sports world is what's the deal with miller what what are the implications of this the newest revelation in this story and quite an ironic one is that throughout

this whole season, Miller has had this walkout routine before the game starts where he comes, you know, you know how like before these basketball games, the whole, the whole arena is dark, the lights are on and the starting lineup will come out of the tunnel. Their name is announced, yada, yada. So his name is announced, you know, the whole thing. And when he gets to the end of the line of his teammates, one of his teammates pats him down. This is kind of a reference to like, he's such a weapon on the team that he has to be pat down before the game. Obviously now with what we know now, that's a little weird. So on Saturday, Alabama played Arkansas and Miller did his usual pat down routine. Very tone deaf, not sure who thought that that was a good idea.

His basketball coach, Nate Oates, said this was not appropriate. He said it won't be happening again. Obviously, I'm sure his coach was very disappointed in that decision to carry on that pregame tradition, but that's just kind of the most recent thing that's happened in this story. So I don't think charges will be brought against him in this case for obvious reasons. Again, that goes back to intent. The prosecutor herself said it likely won't happen, but I would love your thoughts on whether or not you think he should still be playing on Alabama's team, because I think that's a different question in and of itself. And I think a lot of people answer that question differently. You know, the pure fact that he's even involved with a handgun and he's, you know, he was he was at the scene and he had any involvement whatsoever. I think some people would argue he shouldn't really, he didn't do anything. He didn't shoot Jameah Harris. You know, he didn't play a vital role in the shooting and therefore why should he have any sort of punishment? So I'm

curious to know where you guys stand on it. Let me know on my website. You guys know I have that comment section, jordanismylawyer.com. Just scroll to the bottom of this episode's description webpage and you'll see the comments there. So that takes us into our second story, which involves some recent Supreme Court rulings where the justices kind of strayed from their usual six, three splits. As we know, the justices on the Supreme Court are, there are six right leaning justices, three left leaning justices. And typically they'll usually rule, you know, six to three with the six conservative justices on one side and the three liberal justices on the other side. Now, I'm not saying that it never happens where they stray from the usual six to three split.

Obviously it happens, but it's more than likely that the six conservative leading justices typically rule one way, whereas the three liberal leading justices rule another way. And why is that? That's really because obviously conservatives and liberals have differing views than one another on a lot of things. But on top of that, the Supreme Court is reserved for cases involving the Constitution and in some instances, federal law. And that's different than most courts in our country, right? We have courts in our country that hear any issue you can possibly think of, the littlest of issues to the biggest of issues. But the Supreme Court is specifically reserved for issues involving our constitutional rights and federal laws. And it happens that conservatives tend to view these things one way, whereas liberals view it another way. And that's typically why we see the split decisions that we do. But in these two cases

that just happened to be released on Wednesday, the decisions were a bit different than I think some people expected. So I wanted to include this as a story because not only is it nice to see the justices not ruling their typical way, but it also is kind of cool to talk about recent Supreme Court decisions because we don't often hear about them. And obviously, a Supreme Court decision is binding on the whole country. So let's talk about it. The first case was brought by Michael Hewitt. He's a highly paid oil rig supervisor. He sued his employer, Helix Energy Solutions Group, arguing that because he was paid on a daily basis, he was entitled to overtime pay for his typical 84-hour, seven-day weeks on the job. Now, this case revolves around the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which is obviously a federal law.

And that act guarantees overtime pay to covered employees when they work more than 40 hours a week, right? That's something we're all pretty familiar with. Well, the way that Hewitt was paid was on a daily rate basis, but he was still issued paychecks every two weeks. And his paycheck would amount to his daily rate times the number of days he worked in those two weeks. And under that method, he was earning a little over $200,000 a year. So that basically boils down to a daily rate of about $550 per day, if we're calculating that based on a seven-day work week, and that's assuming no days off during the year. Now the employer, Helix, argued that Hewitt was exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act because he was qualified as a bona fide executive.

And under the applicable regulations, an employee is considered a bona fide executive exempt from the FLSA if the employee meets these three distinct tests. And the first test is a salary basis test. And that requires an employee receive a predetermined and fixed salary that does not vary with the amount of time worked. The second test is the salary level test. And that requires the preset salary to exceed a specified amount. And the third test is the duties test. The duties test requires that an employee have the ability to one, manage the enterprise, two, direct other employees, and three, exercise the power to hire and fire. And if they have those abilities, plus, you know, they're compensated on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $455

per week, then the Secretary of Labor says that this is a bona fide executive and that person is exempt from the FLSA, which means they're not entitled to overtime pay. So the question in this case came down to whether Hewitt was paid on a salary basis. Now, the district court agreed with the employer's view that Hewitt was compensated on a salary basis and ruled in favor of the employer. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision and ruled that Hewitt was not paid on a salary basis and therefore could claim the FLSA protections for overtime pay. So this made its way to the Supreme Court, and in determining whether Hewitt was paid on a salary basis, the Supreme Court basically looked at two provisions of the FLSA. The first is section 602, subsection A. The second is section

604, subsection B. But the thing is, is the employer, Helix, already acknowledged that Hewitt's compensation didn't satisfy 604B, so it really came down to 602A. And what 602A says is that an employee will be considered to be paid on a salary basis if the employee regularly receives each pay period on a weekly or less frequent basis, a predetermined amount, which is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed. An exempt employee must receive the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work without regard to the number of days or hours worked. Now that last sentence is why the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Hewitt's favor. Hewitt's compensation structure did not provide the full amount for any week,

regardless of the number of days worked. He was quite literally paid on a daily basis, which meant that he would not be paid the same for seven days a week as he would for six days a week. So for that reason, the Supreme Court ruled against the employer because they said, look, neither 604B nor 602A applies here. And they found that Hewitt is entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. Now, if the justices ruled how they typically do, I'm not going to say how they always do because that's just not the case, how they typically do, then it would be, you know, the left-leaning justices on one side and the right-leaning justices on the other. But Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion in this case, she's left-leaning. And then joining her was Justice Thomas, who's right-leaning,

Justice Sotomayor, who's left-leaning, Justice Barrett, who's right-leaning, and Justice Jackson, who is left-leaning. The dissenting justices were Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Alito, who's right-leaning, and Justice Jackson, who is left-leaning. The dissenting justices were Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Alito, who are all right-leaning. So the two justices that kind of deviated here were Justice Barrett and Justice Thomas. And that is a great example of how, you know, it just kind of illustrates like the Supreme Court justices are supposed to be unbiased, are supposed to, you know, actually determine cases based on the facts of the case and applying the law and applying precedent and yada yada. And this is a great example of that.

So that was one of the cases. So now let's get into the second case, which revolves around the death penalty. In 1994, the Supreme Court decided in Simmons v. South Carolina that judges were required to instruct juries in capital cases that a sentence of life in prison means life without the possibility of parole in states where that is the case. Because their rationale was that if juries were not instructed that life in prison meant life without the possibility of parole, then certain juries may award the death penalty just to really put the nail in the coffin and make sure that an inmate doesn't get out. But if they're instructed that, hey, life in prison means life without the possibility of parole, there's no chance of this person getting out, then maybe

juries would not be so quick to award the death penalty and instead award life in prison. So that was the point of that decision. In Arizona, though, they decided that that ruling did not apply to them, which led the Supreme Court to issue an unsigned opinion in 2016 in a case called Lynch versus Arizona, where the Supreme Court basically said, look, judges, this applies to you too. It was a fundamental error to conclude that that Simmons case, that 1994 Simmons case, did not apply to you because it does. So prior to that 2016 opinion, a death row inmate in Arizona, his name is John Cruz, he was sentenced in 2003. So that's about nine years, if my math is right, after that 1994

Simmons case where the juries had to be instructed that life in prison meant life without the possibility of parole. And he argued at his trial that in accordance with Simmons, he should have been allowed to tell the jury that life in prison meant life without parole because he says perhaps the jury would have given him life and not death if they knew he would never be eligible for parole. Well, the trial court and the Arizona Supreme Court both said that Simmons, that 1994 case, did not apply. Then in 2016, when the Supreme Court ruled that it was a fundamental error for Arizona justices to not abide by that 1994 Simmons case, Cruz again raised the same issue. Typically, you can't appeal the same issue twice once that appeal has been denied. But under one of Arizona's rules of

criminal procedure, a defendant can bring another appeal if there's been a significant change in the law that would overturn the defendant's judgment or sentence. So the Arizona Supreme Court denied Cruz's second petition for relief because they said that 2016 Lynch decision, where the judges were basically like, hey, Arizona, this applies to you too. Arizona said that wasn't a significant change in the law. So of course, Cruz brings this to the Supreme Court and he asked the Supreme Court to answer the question of whether the 2016 Lynch decision was in fact a significant change in the law so as to let him appeal this issue once more. The Supreme Court ultimately decided that the Lynch decision was a significant change to the law in Arizona, reasoning that one, Lynch reversed previously binding Arizona Supreme court precedent.

So that's a pretty significant change. And two Lynch changed the operation of the Simmons decision by Arizona courts in a way that matters for Arizona's rules of criminal procedure. So that's also pretty significant. So what they did was they said, yes, this was a significant change to the law, and we're going to send it back to the Arizona Supreme Court so they can rule in accordance with that. From there, they're going to have to decide whether Cruz should have been able to instruct the jury that life meant life without the possibility of parole. So that's going to take some time to play out, obviously. But again, writing in the majority was Justice Sotomayor, and joining her were Justice Roberts, who is

right-leaning, Justice Kagan, left-leaning, Justice Kavanaugh, right-leaning, and Justice Jackson, left-leaning. The dissenting justices were Barrett, Alito, and Gorsuch, all right-leaning. So the two conservative justices that kind of departed from their typical rulings were Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Roberts. So that is that case. And that is going to take us into some other death penalty related news, not necessarily a Supreme Court case, but the most recent execution in Florida. And his name was Donald Dillbeck. Donald Dillbeck was executed last week, marking Florida's first execution since 2019, which was four years ago. I don't know about you, but 2019 feels like a year and a half ago. He was also the 100th inmate executed in Florida since the reinstatement of the death penalty in

1976. Dillbeck was sentenced to death in 1991. He has a whole lot of criminal history or had, I guess I should say, he had a whole lot of criminal history. So we're going to talk about that because his criminal history definitely worked against him in his trial. Even though what he was on trial for was terrible, the things that he had done before that were just as bad. Like he's just, he just has a track record. So when he was 15, he stabbed a man in Indiana in an attempt to steal a CB radio. From there, he fled to Florida where he was eventually found in a parking lot by a police officer. This police officer was named Deputy Hall. While Deputy Hall was searching Dillbeck, Dillbeck hit him in the groin and ran away. Hall then tackled him to the ground, but Dillbeck took Hall's gun and shot him twice,

killing him. So not only did he stab a man in Indiana while trying to steal a radio, but now he has shot and killed a police officer in Florida. Because he shot and killed the police officer in Florida, he was sentenced to life in prison. For whatever reason, he was put into a minimum security prison and he was at a work release assignment 11 years into his sentence where he was actually catering meals for a seniors event, and he just walked away. Literally walked off site, never to return to prison again. I mean, he'd eventually returned, this time on death row, but he just literally walked away. He walked to the city of Tallahassee where he bought a knife, and then he goes up to a car,

and he attempts to hijack the car from this mall parking lot. Sitting in the car was a woman named Faye Vann. And she was waiting for her family who was inside the mall. And he came up to her and asked her to drive him somewhere, told her he didn't know how to drive, needed her to drive. She honked the horn, tried to drive off, tried to fight back, did whatever she could. But he stabbed her more than 20 times and slit her throat. He crashed the car a short time later and was thankfully caught as he was trying to run away from the scene. And from there, he was charged with first degree murder, armed robbery, and armed burglary. He was convicted on all counts. He was sentenced to consecutive life terms on the robbery and burglary charges, and he was sentenced to death on the murder charge.

So he was sentenced to death on the murder charge and then two life sentences for the other two charges. So he was never getting out. Now, at this time when he was sentenced to death, Florida did not require a unanimous death sentence. So this particular jury came back with an eight to four recommendation for death. It wasn't until 2016 that Florida moved away from this majority vote threshold. And since then it's changed a few times, but obviously this trial was well before 2016.

So all that was needed at the time was a simple seven to five majority because there's 12 people on the jury, then a simple majority is seven to five. Therefore, in this case, the eight to four decision in Dillbeck's case was just fine. There was nothing wrong with it. Well, shortly after his sentence, he of course appealed it because that's what they always do. He appealed his sentence and he raised 10 different issues, but the appeal was denied. He appealed multiple times thereafter. Those were also denied. And then recently he petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States and in part suggested that his death sentence was unconstitutional because it was given by a non-unanimous jury and that Florida now requires a unanimous jury. Part of that appeal was also regarding

whether he is exempted from the death penalty because of his prenatal alcohol exposure under the eighth amendment. So we'll talk about that briefly and then I'll get into the unanimous jury situation. His argument regarding the prenatal alcohol exposure was that prenatal alcohol exposure is both functionally similar and nearly identical in symptomatology to intellectual development disability. So because people with severe intellectual development disability are exempt from the death penalty, he's saying that those with prenatal alcohol exposure should be too, but that's not the case. The Supreme Court did not fall for that. And they were like, no, it's a different story. The second part of the appeal, like I said, was regarding that non-unanimous jury recommendation. So that argument was based

on the fact that relatively recently Florida courts decided, I say relatively recently, just because like, obviously the death penalty has been a thing for a long time. And it wasn't until, you know, 2016 that Florida started moving towards this unanimous, this unanimous requirement. So Florida courts decided that a unanimous death recommendation is required to sentence an inmate to death. Therefore, according to Delbeck, because he was sentenced to death by a last-ditch effort. His attorneys knew that. I think there wasn't really any merit to it. But they argued it anyway, because as I've told you guys before, in these kind of late stage appeals, you kind of got to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

So the denial of that appeal came from the Supreme Court one day before his execution. And so his execution went forward. His last meal was fried shrimp, mushrooms, onion rings, butter pecan ice cream, pecan pie, and a chocolate bar. Now in Florida, the only real requirement they have as far as last meals is that it has to cost less than $40. So not sure if the prison made the food or if he got it off site, but it has to cost less than $40 no matter what. His last words were very interesting. He used his last words as an opportunity to call out Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, and he said, quote, I know I hurt people when I was young.

I really messed up, but I know Ron DeSantis has done a lot worse. He's taken a lot from a lot of people. I speak for all men, women, and children. He's put his foot on our necks. Ron DeSantis and other people like him can suck our dicks. End quote. And those were his last words. He was injected at 6.02 PM. He breathed heavily while his body shook a little bit. And by 6.07 PM, he appeared to stop breathing. And shortly thereafter, he was pronounced dead. Now, the lethal injection protocol in Florida is something that we haven't talked about because we actually, I've never covered an execution in Florida. So their protocol looks a little bit different.

It is still a three-drug cocktail, as we know states like Oklahoma have, but their three-drug cocktail is a little bit different. So the first drug is, and I'm just going to apologize in advance if I pronounce this incorrectly, but it's etomidate, which is a sedative. That's all that matters really. The second drug is rochronium bromide, which is a paralytic. The third is potassium acetate, which is that lethal, like that dosage that stops the heart that I talk about in other states. So let's compare this with the lethal injection in Oklahoma because it's actually very similar. It's sedative, paralytic, stop the heart. So in Oklahoma it goes midazolam, vercronium bromide, and potassium chloride. Same order, just slightly

different drugs. Now interestingly, Oklahoma executions were actually put on hold in 2015 because executioners mistakenly used bottles labeled potassium acetate instead of potassium chloride as the final drug in the injection of two of its inmates. I say that's interesting because Florida actually uses potassium acetate as its third drug, but when Oklahoma did it, it ended up in an execution moratorium and executions couldn't go forward. Obviously, that's for a different reason. It's not because the drug doesn't work. It's just because you have to follow a lethal injection protocol in your state.

If you deviate from that protocol, you're going to find yourselves in some hot water. So the drugs do the same thing. They both stop the heart, but obviously you got to use the drug that your state requires. So that is the United States most recent execution. Florida actually doesn't have any other execution scheduled as of now. So it's hard to say when the next one will be, but Florida does still have 323 inmates on death row. I believe they are second in line to California, which has the most death row inmates, but

I doubt they, I doubt California will ever carry out an execution. California is actually taking steps to end the death penalty. So the next execution in the United States is March 7th. That is scheduled in Texas. So I will update you on that when and if it goes forward, because you guys know a lot of things can happen in the 11th hour. But that concludes today's episode. I hope you guys know a lot of things can happen in the 11th hour. But that concludes

today's episode. I hope you guys thoroughly enjoyed it. Please don't forget to engage on my website, have conversations with each other. I always preach that it is very important to have healthy debate. So definitely feel free to share any of your thoughts on any of these stories. And if you guys have anything that you've heard recently that you want me to cover or you want me to look into, you can always let me know on that too. I have a contact form on my website. That is a great resource as well. You guys can always find my sources at the bottom of each episode webpage description. So if you're ever interested in reading more on these stories or reading for yourself,

please feel free to do that. And I will leave you with one final note. And that is, I know I've been talking the last couple of weeks about this episode. I plan on dropping this coming Monday. I believe it's March 6th surrounding the history of the death penalty. I underestimated how just crazy the week leading up to my wedding would be. So I am still doing everything I can to get that episode released that day. But I also at the same time, don't want to put too much pressure on myself. So I am still doing everything I can to get that episode released that day, but I also at the same time don't want to put too much pressure on myself. So if it doesn't

release on Monday, that would be the only episode that would release on Monday. So if it doesn't, then my next episode will be the Monday after that. And that episode will be the history of the death penalty. So either way, I'm still going to release it because I know, you know, it's a very interesting topic. A lot of you guys are interested in it. Just know that it may not come until the following Monday. So that would be the second Monday in March. So with that, I hope you guys have a great week. And please don't forget to leave me a review on whichever platform you listen.

I'll talk to you guys soon.