Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 29.0

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

25 

Opinion of the Court 

172.  Dr.  Evans’  report  provided  a  similar  explanation  of 
the  way  in  which  midazolam  works,  see  id.,  at  293–294, 
and  Dr.  Lubarsky  did  not  dispute  the  accuracy  of  that 
explanation when he testified at the hearing.  Petitioners 
contend,  however,  that  Dr.  Evans  erred  when  he  said  at 
the  hearing  that  “[m]idazolam  attaches  to  GABA  recep-
tors,  inhibiting  GABA.” 
Id.,  at  312  (emphasis  added). 
Petitioners  contend  that  this  statement  was  incorrect 
because  “far  from  inhibiting  GABA,  midazolam  facilitates 
its binding to GABA receptors.”  Brief for Petitioners 38. 

In  making  this  argument,  petitioners  are  simply  quar-
relling  with  the  words  that  Dr.  Evans  used  during  oral
testimony in an effort to explain how midazolam works in
terms  understandable  to  a  layman.    Petitioners  do  not 
suggest  that  the  discussion  of  midazolam  in  Dr.  Evans’ 
expert  report  was  inaccurate,  and  as  for  Dr.  Evans’  pass-
ing use of the term “inhibiting,” Dr. Lubarksy’s own expert 
report  states  that  GABA’s  “inhibition  of  brain  activity  is 
accentuated  by  midazolam.”  App.  232  (emphasis  added).
Dr.  Evans’  oral  use  of  the  word  “inhibiting”—particularly
in  light  of  his  written  testimony—does  not  invalidate  the
District Court’s decision to rely on his testimony. 

Petitioners  also  point  to  an  apparent  conflict  between
Dr.  Evans’  testimony  and  a  declaration  by  Dr.  Lubarsky 
(submitted  after  the  District  Court  ruled)  regarding  the 
biological process that produces midazolam’s ceiling effect. 
But  even  if  Dr.  Lubarsky’s  declaration  is  correct,  it  is
largely  beside  the  point.  What  matters  for  present  pur-
poses is the dosage at which the ceiling effect kicks in, not 
the  biological  process  that  produces  the  effect.    And  Dr. 
Lubarsky’s declaration does not render the District Court’s 
findings  clearly  erroneous  with  respect  to  that  critical
issue. 

—————— 

782 (7th ed. 2006).