Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

27 

Opinion of the Court 

submitted a declaration to the Court of Appeals criticizing
Dr.  Evans’  reference  to  drugs.com,  that  declaration  does 
not  identify  a  single  fact  from  that  site’s  discussion  of 
midazolam that was materially inaccurate.

Second,  petitioners  argue  that  Dr.  Evans’  expert  report 
contained  a  mathematical  error,  but  we  find  this  argu-
ment insignificant.  Dr. Evans stated in his expert report 
that  the  lowest  dose  of  midazolam  resulting  in  human 
deaths,  according  to  an  MSDS,  is  0.071  mg/kg  delivered 
intravenously.  App.  294.    Dr.  Lubarsky  agreed  with  this 
statement.  Specifically,  he  testified  that  fatalities  have 
occurred in doses ranging from 0.04 to 0.07 mg/kg, and he
stated that Dr. Evans’ testimony to that effect was “a true 
statement”  (though  he  added  those  fatalities  occurred 
among  the  elderly).  Id.,  at  217.  We  do  not  understand 
petitioners to dispute the testimony of Dr. Evans and their 
own expert that 0.071 mg/kg is a potentially fatal dose of
midazolam.  Instead, they make much of the fact that the
MSDS attached to Dr. Evans’ report apparently contained
a typographical error and reported the lowest toxic dose as 
71  mg/kg.  That  Dr.  Evans  did  not  repeat  that  incorrect 
figure  but  instead  reported  the  correct  dose  supports
rather than undermines his testimony.  In any event, the
alleged  error  in  the  MSDS  is  irrelevant  because  the  Dis-
trict  Court  expressly  stated  that  it  did  not  rely  on  the 
figure in the MSDS.  See id., at 75. 

Third,  petitioners  argue  that  there  is  no  consensus
among  the  States  regarding  midazolam’s  efficacy  because 
only  four  States  (Oklahoma,  Arizona,  Florida,  and  Ohio) 
have used midazolam as part of an execution.  Petitioners 
rely on the plurality’s statement in Baze that “it is difficult 
to regard a practice as ‘objectively intolerable’ when it is in 
fact widely tolerated,” and the plurality’s emphasis on the
fact  that  36  States  had  adopted  lethal  injection  and  30
States  used  the  particular  three-drug  protocol  at  issue  in 
that case.  553 U. S., at 53.  But while the near-universal