Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 116.0

20 

GLOSSIP v. GROSS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

Lockett’s  execution  involved  “only  100  milligrams  of  mid­
azolam,”  ante,  at  28,  but  as  explained  previously,  more  is
not necessarily better given midazolam’s ceiling effect.

The  Wood  execution  is  perhaps  even  more  probative.
Despite  being  given  over  750  milligrams  of  midazolam,
Wood  gasped  and  snorted  for  nearly  two  hours.  These 
reactions  were,  according  to  Dr.  Lubarsky,  inconsistent 
with  Wood  being  fully  anesthetized,  App.  177–178,  and 
belie the claim that a lesser dose of 500 milligrams would 
somehow  suffice.  The  Court  attempts  to  distinguish  the 
Wood execution on the ground that the timing of Arizona’s
administration  of  midazolam  was  different.    Ante,  at  28. 
But as Dr. Lubarsky testified, it did not “matter” whether 
in Wood’s execution the “midazolam was introduced all at 
once or over . . . multiple doses,” because “[t]he drug has a 
sufficient half life that the effect is cumulative.”  App. 220;
see  also  Saari  253  (midazolam’s  “elimination  half-life 
ranges  from  1.7  to  3.5  h[ours]”).6    Nor  does  the  fact  that 
Wood’s  dose  of  midazolam  was  paired  with  hydromor­
phone  rather  than  a  paralytic  and  potassium  chromide, 
see ante, at 29, appear to have any relevance—other than
that  the  use  of  this  analgesic  drug  may  have  meant  that
Wood  did  not  experience  the  same  degree  of  searing  pain 
that  an  inmate  executed  under  Oklahoma’s  protocol  may 
face. 

By contrast, Florida’s use of this same three-drug proto­
col in 11 executions, see ante, at 28 (citing Brief for State 
of Florida as Amicus Curiae 1), tells us virtually nothing.
Although  these  executions  have  featured  no  obvious  mis­
haps,  the  key  word  is  “obvious.”    Because  the  protocol 

—————— 

6 The Court asserts that the State refuted these contentions, pointing 
to  Dr.  Evans’  testimony  that  750  milligrams  of  the  drug  “might  not 
have the effect that was sought” if administered over an hour.  Tr. 667; 
see ante, at 28, n. 6.  But as has been the theme here, this pronounce­
ment was entirely unsupported, and appears to be contradicted by the 
secondary sources cited by petitioners’ experts.