Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 23

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

19 

Opinion of the Court 

application of the second and third drugs.”  App. 77.  This 
conclusion  was  not  clearly  erroneous.    Respondents’  ex-
pert, Dr. Evans, testified that the proper administration of
a  500-milligram  dose  of  midazolam  would  make  it  “a 
virtual certainty” that any individual would be “at a suffi-
cient level of unconsciousness to resist the noxious stimuli 
which  could  occur  from  application  of  the  2nd  and  3rd 
drugs” used in the Oklahoma protocol.  Id., at 302; see also 
id.,  at  322.  And  petitioners’  experts  acknowledged  that
they had no contrary scientific proof.  See id., at 243–244 
(Dr. Sasich stating that the ability of midazolam to render 
a person insensate to the second and third drugs “has not 
been  subjected  to  scientific  testing”);  id.,  at  176  (Dr.
Lubarksy  stating  that  “there  is  no  scientific  literature
addressing the use of midazolam as a manner to adminis-
ter lethal injections in humans”). 

In an effort to explain this dearth of evidence, Dr. Sasich
testified that “[i]t’s not my responsibility or the [Food and 
Drug  Administration’s]  responsibility  to  prove  that  the 
drug  doesn’t  work  or  is  not  safe.”    Tr.  of  Preliminary  In-
junction  Hearing  357  (Tr.).  Instead,  he  stated,  “it’s  the 
responsibility  of  the  proponent  to  show  that  the  drug  is 
safe  and  effective.”  Ibid.  Dr.  Sasich  confused  the  stand-
ard imposed on a drug manufacturer seeking approval of a 
therapeutic drug with the standard that must be borne by 
a  party  challenging  a  State’s  lethal  injection  protocol. 
When a method of execution is authorized under state law, 
a  party  contending  that  this  method  violates  the  Eighth
Amendment bears the burden of showing that the method 
creates  an  unacceptable  risk  of  pain.    Here,  petitioners’
own experts effectively conceded that they lacked evidence 
to prove their case beyond dispute.

Petitioners attempt to avoid this deficiency by criticizing
respondents’  expert.  They  argue  that  the  District  Court
should not have credited Dr. Evans’ testimony because he 
admitted  that  his  findings  were  based  on  “ ‘extrapo-