Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 112

16 

GLOSSIP v. GROSS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

acceptance  of  Dr.  Evans’  claim  that  500  milligrams  of
midazolam would “paralyz[e] the brain” cannot be credited.
This  is  not  a  case  “[w]here  there  are  two  permissible
views  of  the  evidence,”  and  the  District  Court  chose  one; 
rather, it is one where the trial judge credited “one of two
or more witnesses” even though that witness failed to tell
“a coherent and facially plausible story that is not contra­
dicted by extrinsic evidence.”  Anderson  v. Bessemer City, 
470  U. S.  564,  574–575  (1985).    In  other  words,  this  is  a 
case in which the District Court clearly erred.  See ibid. 

B 
Setting  aside  the  District  Court’s  erroneous  factual 
finding that 500 milligrams of midazolam will necessarily 
“paralyze the brain,” the question is whether the Court is
nevertheless  correct  to  hold  that  petitioners  failed  to
demonstrate  that  the  use  of  midazolam  poses  an  “objec­
tively intolerable risk” of severe pain.  See Baze, 553 U. S., 
at  50  (plurality  opinion)  (internal  quotation  marks  omit­
ted).    I  would  hold  that  they  made  this  showing.    That  is  
because,  in  stark  contrast  to  Dr.  Evans,  petitioners’  ex­
perts  were  able  to  point  to  objective  evidence  indicating
that  midazolam  cannot  serve  as  an  effective  anesthetic 
that  “render[s]  a  person  insensate  to  pain  caused  by  the
second and third [lethal injection] drugs.”  Ante, at 23. 

As observed above, these experts cited multiple sources
supporting  the  existence  of  midazolam’s  ceiling  effect. 
That  evidence  alone  provides  ample  reason  to  doubt  mid­
azolam’s  efficacy.    Again,  to  prevail  on  their  claim,  peti­
tioners need only establish an intolerable risk of pain, not 
a certainty.  See Baze, 553 U. S., at 50.  Here, the State is 
attempting to use midazolam to produce an effect the drug
has  never  previously  been  demonstrated  to  produce,  and 
despite  studies  indicating  that  at  some  point  increasing 
the  dose  will  not  actually  increase  the  drug’s  effect.    The 
State is thus proceeding in the face of a very real risk that