Florida to execute killer of newspaper employee by lethal injection
A 48-year-old man is to be executed by lethal injection in the southern US state of Florida on Tuesday for the 2000 murder of a newspaper employee who was abducted while on her lunch break.
Michael Tanzi is scheduled to be put to death at 6:00 pm (2200 GMT) at the Florida State Prison in Raiford for the murder of Janet Acosta, 49.
Tanzi would be the third Death Row inmate to be executed in Florida this year and the 11th in the United States.
Tanzi confessed to the murder of Acosta, an employee of the Miami Herald newspaper, and was sentenced to death in 2003.
He kidnapped Acosta while she was eating lunch in her van, forced her to withdraw money from ATM machines and sexually assaulted her before strangling her and dumping her body.
He also confessed -- but was never charged -- with the murder of another woman, and a police detective described Tanzi to the Miami Herald as a "fledgling serial killer."
Tanzi's lawyers have tried to halt his execution arguing that there could be problems with the lethal injection because he is "morbidly obese," but their appeals have been rejected.
His execution is one of two scheduled to be carried out in the United States this week.
Mikal Mahdi, 42, is to be executed by firing squad in South Carolina on Friday for the 2004 murder of an off-duty police officer.
Mahdi would be the second person executed by firing squad in South Carolina this year.
The vast majority of US executions since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976 have been performed using lethal injection.
There were 25 executions in the United States last year.
The death penalty has been abolished in 23 of the 50 US states, while three others -- California, Oregon and Pennsylvania -- have moratoriums in place.
President Donald Trump is a proponent of capital punishment and on his first day in office called for an expansion of its use "for the vilest crimes."
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced last week that federal prosecutors would seek the death penalty for Luigi Mangione, charged with the December 4 murder in New York of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
cl/des
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
26 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court will hear case of Rastafarian whose dreadlocks were shaved by Louisiana prison guards
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear the appeal of a former Louisiana prison inmate whose dreadlocks were cut off by prison guards in violation of his religious beliefs. The justices will review an appellate ruling that held that the former inmate, Damon Landor, could not sue prison officials for money damages under a federal law aimed at protecting prisoners' religious rights. Landor, an adherent of the Rastafari religion, even carried a copy of a ruling by the appeals court in another inmate's case holding that cutting religious prisoners' dreadlocks violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor hadn't cut his hair in nearly two decades when he entered Louisiana's prison system in 2020 on a five-month sentence. At his first two stops, officials respected his beliefs. But things changed when he got to the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Cottonport, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) northwest of Baton Rouge, for the final three weeks of his term. A prison guard took the copy of the ruling Landor carried and tossed it in the trash, according to court records. Then the warden ordered guards to cut his dreadlocks. While two guards restrained him, a third shaved his head to the scalp, the records show. Landor sued after his release, but lower courts dismissed the case. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lamented Landor's treatment but said the law doesn't allow him to hold prison officials liable for damages. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the fall. President Donald Trump's Republican administration filed a brief supporting Landor's right to sue and urged the court to hear the case. Louisiana asked the justices to reject the appeal, even as it acknowledged Landor's mistreatment. Lawyers for the state wrote that 'the state has amended its prison grooming policy to ensure that nothing like petitioner's alleged experience can occur.' The Rastafari faith is rooted in 1930s Jamaica, growing as a response by Black people to white colonial oppression. Its beliefs are a melding of Old Testament teachings and a desire to return to Africa. Its message was spread across the world in the 1970s by Jamaican music icons Bob Marley and Peter Tosh, two of the faith's most famous exponents. The case is Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, 23-1197.
Associated Press
33 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court will hear case of Rastafarian whose dreadlocks were shaved by Louisiana prison guards
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear the appeal of a former Louisiana prison inmate whose dreadlocks were cut off by prison guards in violation of his religious beliefs. The justices will review an appellate ruling that held that the former inmate, Damon Landor, could not sue prison officials for money damages under a federal law aimed at protecting prisoners' religious rights. Landor, an adherent of the Rastafari religion, even carried a copy of a ruling by the appeals court in another inmate's case holding that cutting religious prisoners' dreadlocks violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor hadn't cut his hair in nearly two decades when he entered Louisiana's prison system in 2020 on a five-month sentence. At his first two stops, officials respected his beliefs. But things changed when he got to the Raymond Laborde Correctional Center in Cottonport, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) northwest of Baton Rouge, for the final three weeks of his term. A prison guard took the copy of the ruling Landor carried and tossed it in the trash, according to court records. Then the warden ordered guards to cut his dreadlocks. While two guards restrained him, a third shaved his head to the scalp, the records show. Landor sued after his release, but lower courts dismissed the case. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lamented Landor's treatment but said the law doesn't allow him to hold prison officials liable for damages. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the fall. Landor's lawyers argue that the court should be guided by its decision in 2021 allowing Muslim men to sue over their inclusion on the FBI's no-fly list under a sister statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. President Donald Trump's Republican administration filed a brief supporting Landor's right to sue and urged the court to hear the case. Louisiana asked the justices to reject the appeal, even as it acknowledged Landor's mistreatment. Lawyers for the state wrote that 'the state has amended its prison grooming policy to ensure that nothing like petitioner's alleged experience can occur.' The Rastafari faith is rooted in 1930s Jamaica, growing as a response by Black people to white colonial oppression. Its beliefs are a melding of Old Testament teachings and a desire to return to Africa. Its message was spread across the world in the 1970s by Jamaican music icons Bob Marley and Peter Tosh, two of the faith's most famous exponents. The case is Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, 23-1197.
The Hill
37 minutes ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court turns away Virginia's appeal in felon voting ban lawsuit
The Supreme Court turned away Virginia's appeal on Monday that sought to quash a challenge to the state's lifetime felon voting ban, allowing the lawsuit to move ahead toward trial. Two disenfranchised voters claim the ban violates the Virginia Readmission Act, a federal law that set conditions for Virginia to regain congressional representation following the Civil War. Lower courts allowed the suit to move forward, saying courts can enforce the Readmission Act and the state doesn't have 11th Amendment immunity. But Virginia's Republican-controlled attorney general's office argued to the justices that would open the 'floodgates' and mark a 'radical change in the law.' 'The Fourth Circuit's ruling that the Readmission Acts are judicially enforceable invites courts to wade into the political decisions that restored the rebel States to federal representation more than 150 years ago, calling into question Congress's continuing determination that the States have republican governments and are entitled to representation,' the state wrote in its petition. In a brief order, the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. A federal district judge is set to hold a bench trial in October in the case. It was filed in 2023 by two convicted felons who are ineligible to vote under the Virginia Constitution's lifetime voting ban for felons. Tati Abu King was originally convicted of robbery in 1988 before the governor restored her voting rights. She later lost them again after being convicted of felony drug possession. Toni Heath Johnson has various felony convictions dating back to the 1980s, including forgery, credit card theft and bigamy. Her voting rights, too, were restored, but she was subsequently convicted of drug possession and child endangerment. Their suit points to the Virginia Readmission Act, which was signed in 1870 following the Civil War and allowed the state to regain congressional representation. But it was conditioned on the state never changing its constitution to disenfranchise voters except for those convicted of 'such crimes as are now felonies at common law.' The two Virginians, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and law firm Wilmer Hale, argue that exception only covers a handful of long-recognized felonies like murder, arson and rape. But they say their convictions weren't recognized at common law in 1870, so they should be able to vote. They urged the Supreme Court to turn away Virginia's appeal so the case can move forward. 'The Act's purpose was to prevent Virginia from manipulating statutory criminal law to disenfranchise Black voters—specifically, from convicting and disenfranchising newly freed Black residents based on statutory crimes that were not felonies at the time Virginia entered the Union,' their attorneys wrote.
