Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 117

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

21 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

involves  the  administration  of  a  powerful  paralytic,  it  is, 
as Drs. Sasich and Lubarsky explained, impossible to tell
whether  the  condemned  inmate  in  fact  remained  uncon­
scious.  App.  218,  273;  see  also  Baze,  553  U. S.,  at  71 
(Stevens,  J.,  concurring  in  judgment).    Even  in  these 
executions,  moreover,  there  have  been  indications  of  the 
inmates’  possible  awareness.  See  Brief  for  State  of  Ala­
bama et al. as Amici Curiae 9–13 (describing the 11 Flor- 
ida  executions,  and  noting  that  some  allegedly  involved
blinking  and  other  movement  after  administration  of  the
three drugs).7 

Finally, none of the State’s “safeguards” for administer­
ing  these  drugs  would  seem  to  mitigate  the  substantial
risk that midazolam will not work, as the Court contends. 
See  ante,  at  21–22.    Protections  ensuring  that  officials
have  properly  secured  a  viable  IV  site  will  not  enable
midazolam to have an effect that it is chemically incapable 
of  having.  Nor  is  there  any  indication  that  the  State’s
monitoring  of  the  inmate’s  consciousness  will  be  able  to 
anticipate  whether  the  inmate  will  remain  unconscious 
while  the  second  and  third  drugs  are  administered.    No 
one  questions  whether  midazolam  can  induce  uncon­
sciousness.    The  problem,  as  Lockett’s  execution  vividly 
illustrates,  is  that  an  unconscious  inmate  may  be  awak­
ened  by  the  pain  and  respiratory  distress  caused  by  ad­
ministration of the second and third drugs.  At that point,
even if it were possible to determine whether the inmate is
conscious—dubious,  given  the  use  of  a  paralytic—it  is
already too late.  Presumably for these reasons, the Tenth 
Circuit characterized the District Court’s reliance on these 
procedural mechanisms as “not relevant to its rejection of 
—————— 

7 The fact that courts in Florida have approved the use of midazolam 
in  this  fashion  is  arguably  slightly  more  relevant,  though  it  is  worth 
noting  that  the  majority  of  these  decisions  were  handed  down  before 
the Lockett and Wood executions, and that some relied, as here, on Dr. 
Evans’ testimony.  See ante, at 17.