Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00219/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00219-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

REQUEST FOR BRIEFING

(DPSAGOK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Michael Angelo MORALES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

James E. TILTON, Acting Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and Robert L. Ayers Jr., Acting

Warden of San Quentin State Prison,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06 219 JF RS

Case Number C 06 926 JF RS

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

REQUEST FOR BRIEFING

[]

 Pursuant to the schedule established at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing on

September 29, 2006, the parties’ closing briefs are due on or before October 27, 2006. In

addition to any arguments the parties wish to address in their closing briefs, the Court is

interested in the parties’ views with respect to the following questions:

1. In light of the evidence in the record, what steps can and should Defendants take to

improve their actual implementation of the three-drug protocol described in OP 770? In

answering this question, please address, without limitation:

(a) the qualifications, recruitment, screening, and training of the execution team;

(b) the physical aspects of the execution chamber and apparatus, including the

available space, lighting, sight lines, length and positioning of IV tubing, and

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 256 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

REQUEST FOR BRIEFING

(DPSAGOK)

monitoring equipment; and

(c) record-keeping, including the preparation, content and reliability of execution logs

and records indicating the disposition of drugs used in training and in executions.

The Court is particularly interested in the parties’ views as to whether the experience of other

jurisdictions that use a three-drug execution protocol might be useful with respect to these

matters.

2. Assuming the continued use of pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride in

executions, what are the advantages and disadvantages of using a longer-acting barbiturate, such

as pentobarbital, with or without the use of a narcotic, to induce unconsciousness? What

modifications to OP 770 would be necessary?

3. Again assuming the continued use of pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride in

executions, what steps, in addition to those discussed in response to the first question above, can

and should Defendants take to monitor inmates’ levels of unconsciousness prior to and following

injection of these drugs? For example, would the reliability of the protocol be improved by the

use of a BIS monitor or an EEG? Is the involvement of medical professionals necessary, and if

so, what type(s) of medical professionals should be involved in what ways? In the context of this

question, what would be the advantages and disadvantages of eliminating pancuronium bromide

from the protocol?

4. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of an execution protocol that

achieves its purpose by using one or more sedatives, such as sodium thiopental or pentobarbital,

with or without a narcotic, and eliminates the other two drugs that currently are used? Should a

single dose, multiple doses, a continuous infusion, or some combination of these be used? What

modifications to OP 770 would be necessary?

5. What additional evidence, if any, remains to be submitted in connection with the

evidentiary hearing?

This Request for Briefing should not be read as indicating in any way how the Court

intends to rule in this matter, nor shall the Court construe any response to this request as a waiver

of a party’s arguments with respect either to the constitutionality of the current version of OP 770

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 256 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

REQUEST FOR BRIEFING

(DPSAGOK)

or any other legal issue or procedural question presented by the instant case. 

 DATED: October 3, 2006 __________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 256 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 3