We have extensive coverage of day one in the federal court hearing on California's lethal injection procedures. LA Times coverage is here.
During the first day of a trial on the constitutionality of California's lethal injection method of execution, an expert on pharmacology said the drug used to anesthetize inmates wears off "extremely fast" and potentially exposes prisoners to painful deaths.
"There is a possibility that inmates could emerge [from unconsciousness] and experience a painful execution," Dr. William Ebling, who has done extensive research on anesthetics, testified Tuesday in a San Jose federal courtroom.
He called California's execution procedure a "one-size-fits-all" plan that ignores the fact that drug dosages must be adjusted to a person's size, health history and other factors.
Ebling was among several witnesses — including several who had viewed executions — to portray lethal injection as fraught with uncertainty, a process that appears to render some prisoners clearly unconscious before death while others heave and convulse in what looks like agony.
The four-day trial here is one of several court proceedings around the nation in which lethal injection is under challenge as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Executions have been put on hold in California pending the outcome of the litigation, brought by condemned inmate Michael Morales, who was sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of Terri Winchell, 17, in Lodi.
Sacramento Bee coverage is here.
Fogel may accept or reject the injection protocol or set conditions for following it, he said Tuesday.
The hearing is expected to be the most extensive examination of a lethal injection process to date, though it will not be the first.
The U.S. Supreme Court last spring gave a green light to cases filed by inmates all over the country, challenging state lethal injection protocols as potential violations of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
"Almost all (death row) inmates are filing challenges to lethal injection along with their other appeals," said Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center.
A few appear to be succeeding. A federal judge in Missouri two weeks ago said he would not permit that state's executions to go forward without the participation of a doctor trained in applying anesthesia. Elsewhere, inmates have been executed, including Clarence E. Hill, the Florida man who won the U.S. Supreme Court decision last spring. The courts recently ruled that Hill's constitutional case had been filed too late.
The San Francisco Chronicle carries AP coverage. LINK
A veterinarian called to testify in a federal court hearing weighing whether California's method of lethal injection is unconstitutionally cruel said he wouldn't euthanize animals the same way the state executes inmates.
Lawyers for a death row prisoner have challenged the three-drug protocol, which entails first administering a sedative before injecting a paralyzing agent and finally a heart-stopping drug, arguing it may cause too much pain.
"I would not use that protocol in veterinarian patients," North Carolina veterinarian Kevin Concannon said during the first day of testimony, scheduled to continue Wednesday.
San Jose Mercury News coverage is here.
In the course of this week's hearing, Fogel is expected to explore a number of possible alternatives to the state's current method, including the option of putting an inmate to death solely with the sodium thiopental, which is fatal in high dosages but takes longer to cause death. In fact, Fogel zeroed in on the issue quickly Tuesday as he questioned Dr. Mark Heath, a New York anesthesiologist who has testified for death row inmates in dozens of lethal injection cases.
Heath, Morales' chief expert witness, testified that California's lethal injection procedure is deeply flawed and lags behind changes proposed in other states. In questioning Heath, Fogel suggested that the crux of resolving the case is to find a way to ensure an inmate is unconscious throughout an execution.
``The protocol has to be focused on the anesthetic,'' Fogel remarked. ``Logically, that's what this is about. It almost doesn't matter what drug you use to execute somebody -- it's a question of whether you properly anesthetize them.''
Comments