Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 33

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

29 

Opinion of the Court 

12,  n. 9.    And  Arizona  used  a  different  two-drug  protocol
that  paired  midazolam  with  hydromorphone,  a  drug  that 
is not at issue in this case.  Ibid.  When all of the circum-
stances  are  considered,  the  Lockett  and  Wood  executions 
have little probative value for present purposes. 

Finally,  we  find  it  appropriate to  respond to  the princi-
pal  dissent’s  groundless  suggestion  that  our  decision  is
tantamount  to  allowing  prisoners  to  be  “drawn  and  quar-
tered,  slowly  tortured  to  death,  or  actually  burned  at  the
stake.”  Post, at 28.  That is simply not true, and the prin-
cipal dissent’s resort to this outlandish rhetoric reveals the 
weakness of its legal arguments. 

VI 

For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit is affirmed. 

It is so ordered. 

—————— 

medical journal. 

After  the  Wood  execution,  Arizona  commissioned  an  independent 
assessment of its execution protocol and the Wood execution.  According
to that report, the IV team leader, medical examiner, and an independ-
ent physician all agreed that the dosage of midazolam “would result in
heavy sedation.”  Ariz. Dept. of Corrections, Assessment and Review of
the  Ariz.  Dept.  of  Corrections  Execution  Protocols  46,  48  (Dec.  15, 
2014),  online  at  https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
PDFs/arizona_final_report_12_15_14_w_cover.pdf. 
from 
blaming  midazolam  for  the  Wood  execution,  the  report  recommended
that Arizona replace its two-drug protocol with Oklahoma’s three-drug 
protocol  that  includes  a  500-milligram  dose  of  midazolam  as  the  first 
drug.  Id., at 49. 

And 

far