Opinion ID: 204393
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: lethal injection in arizona

Text: Arizona has mandated execution by lethal injection since 1992. [1] From 1992 to 2000, Arizona executed twenty inmates. Then there was a six-year hiatusArizona did not conduct any executions from 2000 to 2006. In 2007, Arizona executed one inmate, Robert Comer, on May 22, 2007. Arizona uses a three-drug lethal injection cocktail that consists of three chemicalssodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide and potassium chlorideadministered sequentially. Sodium thiopental is a fast-acting barbiturate that anesthetizes the inmate and permits the other chemicals to be administered without causing pain. Pancuronium bromide is a paralytic neuromuscular blocking agent that causes complete paralyzation and suffocation. Potassium chloride induces cardiac arrest. It is uncontested on this record that, if an inmate is not properly anesthetized by the sodium thiopental at the start of the execution, he will experience significant pain and suffering from the administration of the pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride. If the sodium thiopental is administered properly, however, there is no risk of pain during the execution. Until 2007, Arizona did not have any written procedures for preparing and administering the lethal injection chemicals. Execution procedures were maintained solely through practical exercises and training. In the months leading up to Comer's execution in May 2007, Arizona began revising its execution procedures and drafting a written execution protocol. After Comer's execution, Arizona further revised the procedures, eventually producing a written protocol dated November 1, 2007. During the course of this litigation, Arizona agreed to amend the November 1, 2007 protocol to address some concerns raised by Dickens. Among other amendments, Arizona agreed to conduct license and background checks on all members of the medical team that assists with executions, and to no longer employ certain medical team members who Dickens argued were incompetent. Arizona also added training and experience requirements for medical team members. The amendments are set forth in a Joint Report submitted to the district court on April 9, 2009. The district court considered the constitutionality of the November 1, 2007 protocol, as amended by the Joint Report (the Protocol), and our analysis on appeal is similarly constrained. We have not consideredand express no opinion onany amendments to the Protocol or any provisions that were not addressed by the district court. [2]