Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

28 

GLOSSIP v. GROSS 

Opinion of the Court 

use  of  the  particular  protocol  at  issue  in  Baze  supported
our conclusion that this protocol did not violate the Eighth
Amendment,  we  did  not  say  that  the  converse  was  true, 
i.e.,  that  other  protocols  or  methods  of  execution  are  of
doubtful  constitutionality.  That  argument,  if  accepted, 
would  hamper  the  adoption  of  new  and  potentially  more 
humane  methods  of  execution  and  would  prevent  States
from  adapting  to  changes  in  the  availability  of  suitable
drugs.

Fourth,  petitioners  argue  that  difficulties  with  Oklaho-
ma’s  execution  of  Lockett  and  Arizona’s  July  2014  execu-
tion  of  Joseph  Wood  establish  that  midazolam  is  sure  or 
very  likely  to  cause  serious  pain.    We  are  not  persuaded. 
Aside  from  the  Lockett  execution,  12  other  executions 
have been conducted using the three-drug protocol at issue
here,  and  those  appear  to  have  been  conducted  without 
any  significant  problems.  See  Brief  for  Respondents  32;
Brief  for  State  of  Florida  as  Amicus  Curiae  1.  Moreover, 
Lockett  was  administered  only  100  milligrams  of  midazo-
lam,  and  Oklahoma’s  investigation  into  that  execution
concluded  that  the  difficulties  were  due  primarily  to  the 
execution team’s inability to obtain an IV access site.  And 
the  Wood  execution  did  not  involve  the  protocol  at  issue 
here.  Wood did not receive a single dose of 500 milligrams 
of  midazolam;  instead,  he  received  fifteen  50-milligram 
doses over the span of two hours.8  Brief for  Respondents 
—————— 

8 The principal dissent emphasizes Dr. Lubarsky’s testimony that it is
irrelevant  that  Wood  was  administered  the  drug  over a  2-hour  period. 
Post,  at  20.    But  Dr.  Evans  disagreed  and  testified  that  if  a  750-
milligram dose “was spread out over a long period of time,” such as one 
hour (i.e., half the time at issue in the Wood execution), the drug might 
not be as effective as if it were administered all at once.  Tr. 667.  The 
principal  dissent  states  that  this  “pronouncement  was  entirely  unsup-
ported,”  post, at  20,  n. 6,  but  it  was  supported  by  Dr.  Evans’  expertise 
and  decades  of  experience.    And  it  would  be  unusual  for  an  expert 
testifying  on  the  stand  to  punctuate  each  sentence  with  citation  to  a