Opinion ID: 797785
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Chemical Administration Documentation

Text: 136 An examination of best practices from other jurisdictions suggested that post-execution review of lethal injection executions is facilitated by contemporaneous documentation of the administration of the lethal injection chemicals. An express requirement for contemporaneous documentation by a member of the IV team has been incorporated into the updated manual. Selected Areas of Inquiry—Electrocution 137 The following issues relating to electrocution were among those given particular attention in researching best practices: A. History of Tennessee's Electric Chair 138 In 1989, Tennessee's electric chair was refurbished and a new electrocution system was installed by Fred A. Leuchter Associates, Inc. Later the system underwent substantial modifications at the recommendation of Dr. Michael Morse, PhD, and Jay Weichert, a professional electrical engineer who has consulted with a number of states on electrocution protocols. Through subsequent years Mr. Weichert has consulted with the Tennessee Department of Correction concerning the operation of its electrocution system and has tested and maintained the system in working order. 139 The Committee met with Mr. Weichert at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution on March 5, 2007. He explained in detail how the system operates, the recommended settings, and how to respond to various contingencies. His recommendations have been incorporated into the electrocution manual. B. Electrocution Equipment Control Settings 140 Expert input received by the Department indicates that the electrocution equipment should be set to render 1750 volts at 7 amps, cycled on for 20 seconds, off for 20 seconds, and on for an additional 15 seconds. These settings have been retained. 141 C. Electrocution Equipment Maintenance and Testing 142 Although not required by the state's previous written protocol, the Department has tested its electrocution system at least quarterly and has conducted regular maintenance as required. The Department considers this schedule to be adequate and has expressly incorporated it into the updated manual. The updated manual also expressly requires documentation of testing, maintenance, and modifications in a permanent ledger. Selected References 143 Hamilton v. Jones, 472 F.3d 814 (10th Cir.2007) 144 Taylor v. Crawford, 457 F.3d 902 (8th Cir.2006) 145 Brown v. Beck, 445 F.3d 752 (4th Cir. 2006), pet. for cert filed, (April 20, 2006) (No. 05-10482) 146 Morales v. Hickman, 438 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.2006), cert. denied, [___ U.S.____] 126 S.Ct. 1314, 163 L.Ed.2d 1148 (2006) 147 Morales v. Tilton, 465 F.Supp.2d 972 (N.D.Cal.2006) 148 Evans v. Saar, 412 F.Supp.2d 519 (D.Md. 2006) 149 Reid v. Johnson, 333 F.Supp.2d 543 (E.D.Va.2004) 150 Blaze [Baze] v. Rees, [217] S.W.3d [207], 2006 WL 3386544 (Ky.2006) 151 Abdur'Rahman v. Bredesen, 181 S.W.3d 292 (Tenn.2005) cert. denied, [___ U.S. ____] 126 S.Ct. 2286 [2288], 164 L.Ed.2d 813 (2006) 152 Coe v. Sundquist, No. M2000-00897-SC-R9-CV (Tenn.) (April 19, 2000) 153 State v. Webb, 252 Conn. 128, 750 A.2d 448 (2000) 154 Substantive Challenges to Propriety of Execution by Lethal Injection in State Capital Proceedings, 21 A.L.R. 6th 1 (2007) 155 Denno, Deborah, When Legislatures Delegate Death: The Troubling Paradox Behind State Uses of Electrocution and Lethal Injection and What It Says About Us, 63 Ohio St. L.J. 63 (2002)