Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

Second,  petitioners  bear  the  burden  of  persuasion  on
  Although  petitioners
this  issue.  Baze,  supra,  at  41.
expend  great  effort  attacking  peripheral  aspects  of  Dr.
Evans’ testimony, they make  little attempt to prove what
is  critical,  i.e.,  that  the  evidence  they  presented  to  the
District  Court  establishes  that  the  use  of  midazolam  is 
sure or very likely to result in needless suffering. 

Third,  numerous  courts  have  concluded  that  the  use  of 
midazolam  as  the  first  drug  in  a  three-drug  protocol  is 
likely  to  render  an  inmate  insensate  to  pain  that  might 
result  from  administration  of  the  paralytic  agent  and
potassium  chloride.  See,  e.g.,  776  F. 3d  721  (case  below 
affirming  the  District  Court);  Chavez  v.  Florida  SP  War-
den,  742  F. 3d  1267  (affirming  the  District  Court);  Banks 
v.  State,  150  So.  3d  797  (Fla.  2014)  (affirming  the  lower 
court); Howell v. State, 133 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 2014) (same); 
Muhammad  v.  State,  132  So.  3d  176  (Fla.  2013)  (same).
(It is noteworthy that one or both of the two key witnesses 
in  this  case—Dr.  Lubarsky  for  petitioners  and  Dr.  Evans
for  respondents—were  witnesses  in  the  Chavez,  Howell, 
“Where  an  intermediate  court 
and  Muhammad  cases.) 
reviews,  and  affirms,  a  trial  court’s  factual  findings,  this
Court will not ‘lightly overturn’ the concurrent findings of 
the two lower courts.”  Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U. S. 234, 
242 (2001).  Our review is even more deferential where, as 
here, multiple trial courts have reached the same finding,
and  multiple  appellate  courts  have  affirmed  those  find-
ings.  Cf. Exxon Co., U. S. A. v. Sofec, Inc., 517 U. S. 830, 
841 (1996) (explaining that this Court “ ‘cannot undertake 
to  review  concurrent  findings  of  fact  by  two  courts  below 
in  the  absence  of  a  very  obvious  and  exceptional  showing 
of  error’ ”  (quoting  Graver  Tank  &  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Linde  Air 
Products Co., 336 U. S. 271, 275 (1949))).

Fourth,  challenges  to  lethal  injection  protocols  test  the
boundaries  of  the  authority  and  competency  of  federal 
courts.  Although  we  must  invalidate  a  lethal  injection