Muhammad claim in Florida

2015Id.

2015Id.

2014In denying Muhammad’s claim that the use of midazolam hydrochloride as the first drug violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the circuit court held that Muhammad failed to present any credible evidence that, when administered in the amount called for in Florida’s lethal injection protocol, the drug is “sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering” and give rise to “sufficiently imminent dangers” under the standard set forth in the plurality decision of the United States Supreme Court in Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 50 , 128 S.Ct.

2014In denying Muhammad’s claim that the use of midazolam hydrochloride as the first drug violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the circuit court held that Muhammad failed to present any credible evidence that, when administered in the amount called for in Florida’s lethal injection protocol, the drug is “sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering” and give rise to “sufficiently imminent dangers” under the standard set forth in the plurality decision of the United States Supreme Court in Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 50 , 128 S.Ct.

2006Green v. Moore, 777 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). [2] Although the trial court may not prohibit DOC from cutting Muhammad's beard, because courts are not authorized to regulate treatment of inmates, the court does have jurisdiction to consider his challenge to the validity of DOC's shaving regulation on religious grounds.

2006We therefore direct the circuit court to construe his petition for writ of mandamus as one for declaratory relief, and to address the merits of Muhammad's claim under chapter 761. [2] Cf. Mayweathers v. Terhune, 328 F.Supp.2d 1086 (E.D.Cal.2004) (holding that the California State Prison rule requiring inmates to be clean-shaven was not the least restrictive means for achieving a compelling governmental interest, and *239 thus violated Muslim inmates' religious rights under the federal counterpart to RFRA).

2005With the exception of Muhammad's claim that the State failed "to disclose exculpatory employee statements in violation of Brady v. Maryland, " 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), this Court affirmed the trial court's order.

2005With the exception of Muhammad's claim that the State failed "to disclose exculpatory employee statements in violation of Brady v. Maryland, " 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), this Court affirmed the trial court's order.

2003That seems clear enough," to which Muhammad responded, "Okay, Your Honor." The next day, Muhammad objected "to the Court's offer that I use Mr. Replogle because if I'm not mistaken, this Court entered an order appointing the office of the Public Defender as standby counsel, not assistance of counsel." While lacking some clarity, Muhammad's objection was apparently based on his desire to make it clear that he did not acquiesce to the trial court's offer to use Replogle in the role of standby counsel. [12] Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). [13] The Supr

2003That seems clear enough," to which Muhammad responded, "Okay, Your Honor." The next day, Muhammad objected "to the Court's offer that I use Mr. Replogle because if I'm not mistaken, this Court entered an order appointing the office of the Public Defender as standby counsel, not assistance of counsel." While lacking some clarity, Muhammad's objection was apparently based on his desire to make it clear that he did not acquiesce to the trial court's offer to use Replogle in the role of standby counsel. [12] Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). [13] The Supr

2003This, in turn, may erode the dignitary values that the right to self-representation is intended to promote and may undercut the defendant's presentation to the jury of his own most effective defense." Id. at 181-82, 104 S.Ct. 944 . [14] In a footnote, Muhammad's brief indicates that he was not present for the excusal of two jurors and that he was also absent when the manner of conducting voir dire was decided.

2003This, in turn, may erode the dignitary values that the right to self-representation is intended to promote and may undercut the defendant's presentation to the jury of his own most effective defense." Id. at 181-82, 104 S.Ct. 944 . [14] In a footnote, Muhammad's brief indicates that he was not present for the excusal of two jurors and that he was also absent when the manner of conducting voir dire was decided.