Wakeforest22890
Snowpom
People are still making 8th amendment arguments and filing 1983 claims. I don't know if they were here but in general these are still used.
Been following the Glossip case for the better part of a year to eighteen months related to another death penalty case and this is certainly interesting. Midazolam's use in the cocktail is interesting given that it doesn't provide much upside and does have a decent amount of downside.
I'm not a death penalty scholar by any means, but what would have been the legal arguments for staying the execution. This doesn't seem to be a case where there is any doubt as to her involvement in the crime. Are people still making 8th amendment arguments?
Gov. Mary Fallin issues stay of execution for Richard Glossip in final hour
She says the stay is related to the drugs used to execute, as opposed to the questions about his guilt. This was a surprise as she had earlier said she would not halt the execution. (A representative for the pope sent her a letter asking her to commute Glossip's sentence.)
The Supreme Court didn't seem to think that was an issue
Been following the Glossip case for the better part of a year to eighteen months related to another death penalty case and this is certainly interesting. Midazolam's use in the cocktail is interesting given that it doesn't provide much upside and does have a decent amount of downside.
[/B]
could you briefly elaborate?
I do not support the death penalty anymore, and I think if we're going to do it we should use the guillotine and do it publicly so the citizenry is forced to witness what is being done in their name.
That said, it is common layman's knowledge that drugs used in surgical anesthesia put people to sleep painlessly and overdoses of those same drugs can, and do, kill people. Michael Jackson is a good example. Why are the states insisting on these three drug cocktails that have to be imported from Europe and cause such problems? Are there no anesthesia drugs manufactured in the US? Do the people that make whatever killed Michael Jackson refuse to sell it for executions? Just seems like a whole bunch of sound and fury over a problem that should be easy to solve (not that I want it solved).
My #amateur knowledge comes almost exclusively on the SCOTUS case about it last term, but basically midazolam is being used as a substitute for sodium thiopental, which is the drug in the cocktail that is supposed to render the person unconscious. But in normal medical practice, midazolam isn't really used for rendering people unconscious for surgery and there was an argument that it is not strong enough to do so. The doses being used in executions are many times higher than in medical practice, but there was evidence that midazolam has a low "ceiling effect", and so just because you are using high doses doesn't mean that it's more likely to render someone completely unconscious.
Complicating this is the fact that a paralytic is used in these executions, so if the midazolam doesn't make the person unconscious, he could just be lying there in excruciating pain but unable to move or show any indication that he is not unconscious.
The botched execution in Oklahoma last year used midazolam and the person woke up during the execution, though it's not clear how much midazolam actually made it into his system because the IV wasn't placed correctly.
Maybe Numbers has more to add
My #amateur knowledge comes almost exclusively on the SCOTUS case about it last term, but basically midazolam is being used as a substitute for sodium thiopental, which is the drug in the cocktail that is supposed to render the person unconscious. But in normal medical practice, midazolam isn't really used for rendering people unconscious for surgery and there was an argument that it is not strong enough to do so. The doses being used in executions are many times higher than in medical practice, but there was evidence that midazolam has a low "ceiling effect", and so just because you are using high doses doesn't mean that it's more likely to render someone completely unconscious.
Complicating this is the fact that a paralytic is used in these executions, so if the midazolam doesn't make the person unconscious, he could just be lying there in excruciating pain but unable to move or show any indication that he is not unconscious.
The botched execution in Oklahoma last year used midazolam and the person woke up during the execution, though it's not clear how much midazolam actually made it into his system because the IV wasn't placed correctly.
Maybe Numbers has more to add
This is a clusterfuck. How do you get all the way to the day of execution and realize that you don't have one of the drugs you need? The protocol that they just got upheld by SCOTUS called for potassium chloride, and they got to the day of the execution and realized that what they have on hand is potassium acetate, not potassium chloride?? These are the people who are entrusted to humanely take the lives of someone else.
I actually did a little bit of digging through the record the other day, and there are a LOT of potential issues that combined seem to present at least plausible case that he is actually innocent, or at worst that he was denied a fair trial and received ineffective assistance of counsel. But unless something new happens in the next 37 days, doesn't look like he has any chance of prevailing as SCOTUS already rejected his final appeals before the stay
Some examples:
- The main thing implicating Glossip is the testimony of the guy who actually killed the victim. That guy, Justin Sneed, confessed to the murder on video and didn't mention anything about Glossip. It wasn't until later when a detective basically introduced to Sneed the idea that Glossip was involved that he fingered Glossip.
Glossip's first conviction was reversed a new trial was ordered because of ineffective assistance of counsel in part because his lawyer didn't show the jury the video of the first confession where Sneed didn't mention Glossip. Then, unbelievably, in his second trial, the lawyer did the exact same thing not showing the video - but this time the appeals court didn't reverse, calling it a litigation strategy decision.
- The prosecutor had a large pad of paper on an easel and as witnesses made statements implicating Glossip, he wrote these down on the papers and hung the papers around the courtroom. These then stayed hanging up in the courtroom throughout the trial, arguably tainting the jury by continuously exposing them to the statements. Glossip's attorney objected to this, and when the court allowed it, he asked the judge to preserve the pieces of paper in the record so that he would be able to show them to the appeals court. The judge refused to do that. Glossip's attorney then asked if he could take photos of how they were placed in the court room, again so there would be some record, and the judge got mad at him and basically told him to go pound sand.
Thus, there was no real way for the appeals court to review whether the placement of these papers could have been prejudicial to the jury. The appeals court unanimously agreed that the trial court should have preserved the papers in the record, but three of the five somehow held that not doing so was harmless error - though I'm not sure how they would have anything to base this on since there was no evidence preserved as to whether the papers caused harm or not.
I don't believe anesthesiologists are permitted to participate in capital punishment if they want to be certified by the ABA.