Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

24 

GLOSSIP v. GROSS 

Opinion of the Court 

dissent avoids these critical issues by suggesting that such 
evidence is “irrelevant if there is no dose at which the drug 
can  . . .  render  a  person  ‘insensate  to  pain.’ ”  Post,  at  17. 
But  the  District  Court  heard  evidence  that  the  drug  can 
render  a  person  insensate  to  pain,  and  not  just  from  Dr.
Evans:  Dr.  Sasich  (one  of  petitioners’  own  experts)  testi-
fied  that  higher  doses  of  midazolam  are  “expected  to  pro-
duce  . . .  lack  of  response  to  stimuli  such  as  pain.”    App. 
243.6 

In  their  brief,  petitioners  attempt  to  deflect  attention
from  their  failure  of  proof  regarding  midazolam’s  ceiling
effect  by  criticizing  Dr.  Evans’  testimony.    But  it  was 
petitioners’  burden  to  establish  that  midazolam’s  ceiling 
occurred  at  a  dosage  below  the  massive  500-milligram 
dose employed in the Oklahoma protocol and at a point at 
which the drug failed to render the recipient insensate to 
pain.  They did not meet that burden, and their criticisms
do  not  undermine  Dr.  Evans’  central  point,  which  the 
District Court credited, that a properly administered 500-
milligram  dose  of  midazolam  will  render  the  recipient 
unable to feel pain.

One of petitioners’ criticisms of Dr. Evans’ testimony is
little more than a quibble about the wording chosen by Dr.
Evans  at  one  point  in  his  oral  testimony.  Petitioners’ 
expert, Dr. Lubarsky, stated in his report that midazolam
“increases  effective  binding  of  [gamma-aminobutyric  acid 
(GABA)] to its receptor to induce unconsciousness.”7  App. 
—————— 

6 The principal dissent emphasizes Dr. Lubarsky’s supposedly contra-
ry  testimony,  but  the  District  Court  was  entitled  to  credit  Dr.  Evans 
(and Dr. Sasich) instead of Dr. Lubarsky on this point.  And the District
Court had strong reasons not to credit Dr. Lubarsky, who even argued
that  a  protocol  that  includes  sodium  thiopental  is  “constructed  to 
produce egregious harm and suffering.”  App. 227. 

7 GABA  is  “an  amino  acid  that  functions  as  an  inhibitory  neuro-
transmitter in the brain and spinal cord.”  Mosby’s Medical Dictionary