IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
EX PARTE DERRICK SEAN O'BRIEN
IN CAUSE NO. 9402971 FROM THE
184TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY
CONCURRING STATEMENT
I respectfully concur in the court's action lifting applicant's temporary stay of execution. Because of the last-minute nature of applicant's habeas corpus filing, a majority of this Court voted to grant a stay to have sufficient time to assess both the procedural aspects of the subsequent writ application and the merits of the claim.
Applicant, who was convicted of capital murder in 1994, does not, in this subsequent application, challenge Texas' right to execute him. Indeed, he claims that he does not challenge the method of his execution-lethal injection. His sole challenge is to the specific chemicals that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) uses in its lethal injection protocol. He contends that two of these three chemicals, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride, are "unnecessary to carrying out his execution" and "unnecessarily create a risk that O'Brien will suffer excruciating excessive pain during the administration of his lethal injection."
Applicant argues that the United States Supreme Court has recently stayed the execution of a Florida death row inmate and granted certiorari to address claims similar to those raised in his successor application. See Hill v. Crosby, 126 S.Ct. 1189 (2006). The questions on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Hill v. Crosby are:
1. Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue
a challenge to the chemicals utilized for carrying out the execution, is
properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
2. Whether, under this Court's decision in Nelson, a challenge to a
particular protocol the State plans to use during the execution process
constitutes a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
These questions do not address the merits of whether the chemicals used in the Florida or Texas lethal injection protocol are "unnecessary," "cause excruciating pain," or violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case addresses only a procedural issue under the federal Civil Rights Act, thus, there is no reason to stay applicant's execution pending the Supreme Court's resolution in Hill. Furthermore, applicant has not met the Supreme Court standard for granting a stay of execution.
A. The Supreme Court Standard for Granting a Stay to Litigate Eighth Amendment Lethal Injection Claims.
Two years ago, in Nelson v. Campbell, the Supreme Court set out the standard for granting a stay of execution to bring an equitable action challenging the methodology (or chemical protocol) of an inmate's execution:
before granting a stay [of execution], a district court must consider not only the likelihood of success on the merits and the relative harms the parties, but also the extent to which the inmate has delayed unnecessarily in bringing the claim. Given the State's significant interest in enforcing its criminal judgments, there is a strong equitable presumption against the grant of a stay where a claim could have been brought at such a time as to allow consideration of the merits without requiring entry of a stay. (1)
Thus, even if the Supreme Court, in the pending Hill case, allows an inmate to bring an equitable action challenging the lethal injection chemical protocol, an inmate still would not be entitled to either a stay or equitable relief unless, under Nelson, he has shown a fair likelihood (such as a prima facie showing) of success on the merits of his claim, and that he has not delayed unnecessarily in bringing it. (2)
In assessing the validity of a claim of "cruel and unusual" punishment, the Supreme Court has considered various factors, such as whether a method of punishment (1) deviates from contemporary norms and standards of society; (2) offends the dignity of the prisoner and society; or (3) inflicts unnecessary physical or psychological pain "contrary to contemporary standards of decency." (3) These factors dictate that punishments may not include torture, slow death, or "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." (4) Thus, to be entitled to stay, an inmate must make a prima facie showing that the injection protocol causes torture, a lingering death, or wanton infliction of pain contrary to contemporary standards of decency.
As the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted in the Eighth Amendment context of the evolving standards of decency, "[t]he clearest and most reliable objective evidence of contemporary values is the legislation enacted by the country's legislatures." (5) Of the thirty-eight states that presently permit capital punishment, approximately thirty-seven of them have adopted lethal injection as the primary means of execution. (6) Almost every single one of those states uses the same three chemicals as TDCJ. (7) Moreover, I am unable to find any court that has held that lethal injection in general, or a specific lethal-injection protocol in particular, violates the Eighth Amendment. (8)
B. Applicant has not made a prima facie showing that his constitutional claim is meritorious.
Applicant's claim, simply put, is that the lethal injection chemicals used by TDCJ could cause a painful death. Applicant offers neither evidence-much less scientific or medical data, peer-reviewed journal articles, expert affidavits, or controlled scientific studies-nor law to support this scientifically based medical claim. But numerous courts across this nation have rejected claims similar to applicant's-some after extensive evidentiary hearings, (9) others based upon the face of the pleading. (10)
According to the TDCJ response to applicant's administrative complaint, the lethal injection method used by TDCJ is based upon three separate chemicals.
First, an inmate is given a "massive dose of sodium pentothal," a barbiturate also known as sodium thiopental. (11) This drug is most commonly used as a fast-acting medical anesthesia. It is given in small doses during operations, and, because it rapidly reaches the brain, it generally causes unconsciousness within 30-45 seconds. When used as a part of the lethal injection process, however, it is injected at approximately nine to ten times the medical-anesthesia level. (12) TDCJ uses 3 grams of sodium pentothal in 30 milliliters of solution. TDCJ states that "[t]his dose is considered to be lethal in adults." (13)
Second, the inmate is given an injection of pancuronium bromide which is a neuromuscular blocking agent, similar to curare. (14) Pancuronium bromide causes the inmate to suffocate, because the lungs stop moving. At the same time, the drug's paralytic effect prevents the person from manifesting any sensation by facial expression, hand movement, or speech. (15) As explained by one court:
Pancuronium suppresses involuntary seizures or motor manifestations that may occur during the execution process. These motor manifestations could give witnesses the false perception that the condemned inmate was experiencing pain. In light of the large dose of sodium thiopental, the inmate does not experience any pain associated with any potential involuntary motor reactions. Fifty milligrams of pancuronium bromide is a lethal dosage and will cause death by the cessation of respiration within two minutes. In this protocol, the probability that the inmate would be conscious of the physical effects of pancuronium is less than 1/100 of one percent. (16)
Third, the inmate is given an injection of potassium chloride. Potassium chloride burns intensely as it goes through the veins toward the heart. When potassium chloride reaches the heart, it causes a heart attack. (17)
Applicant points to the fact that numerous states, including Texas, have banned the use of neuromuscular blocking agents such as pancuronium bromide for use in animal euthanasia. (18) These states generally require the use of a single barbiturate, such as sodium pentobarbitol (which is a longer-acting barbiturate than sodium pentothal). Some might conclude that sodium pentobarbitol is a more humane sedative to use in conducting lethal injections because it lasts longer. But applicant has not shown that the massive dose of sodium pentothal used by TDCJ fails to ensure the inmate's unconsciousness. Moreover, because of its infrequent use, pentobarbitol lacks the state-of-the-art scientific analysis regarding its effects and dependability that is available for sodium pentothal. It is not this Court's function to suggest more humane or medically acceptable execution protocol, but to determine whether the method adopted by TDCJ (and used widely across the United States) is constitutionally sound. (19)
Applicant's argument suggests that if the sodium pentothal does not work, or if it is injected improperly, or if the dosage is not high enough, or if it wore off too soon, he could be conscious at the time that the second injection (of pancuronium bromide) is given and he would suffer great pain, but that pain would be masked because he could not move, speak, or otherwise indicate his suffering. All of these are conceivable possibilities, but they are based upon the assumption that the sodium pentothal injection is ineffective or does not cause a sufficiently long period of unconsciousness (even though it is a fatal dosage). (20)
Courts cannot judge the lethal injection protocol based solely on speculation as to problems or mistakes that might occur. Instead, they must examine the lethal injection protocol as it exists today. Applicant has provided no evidence that the TDCJ protocol is subject to any realistic risk of unnecessary pain or suffering. The Supreme Court of Connecticut has reached the same conclusion:
The defendant's argument is premised on a series of presumptions: that the personnel will not be trained adequately; that the dosage of thiopental sodium ten times the surgical dose will not be sufficient to render the inmate unconscious; and that the agents will not be administered in the proper time and sequence. The evidence, however, supports a conclusion that reasonable steps have been taken to eliminate human error. . . . We conclude . . . that the agents may be administered correctly and effectively, and that the possibility of a "botched" execution is extremely remote under the protocol. (21)
The risk of accident or negligence "cannot and need not be eliminated from the execution process" for that method to survive constitutional review. (22) Those courts that have considered the issue of the lethal injection drug protocol have found that the likelihood of constitutional error occurring "is so remote as to be nonexistent." (23)
In sum, applicant has failed to produce any facts or scientific evidence that a scenario involving unnecessary pain and suffering by the use of TDCJ's chemical protocol is anything other than speculation. I therefore join in the Court's decision to lift the temporary stay of execution and to the dismissal of applicant's subsequent petition for failing to make a prima facie showing of possible merit.
Filed: May 17, 2006
Publish
1. Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 649-50 (2004) (citations omitted).
2. Applicant appropriately notes that this Court recently held that a direct appeal challenge
to the lethal injection chemicals used in Texas was not ripe because the defendant's execution
was not "imminent." 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Appendix C to Derrick O'Brien's application for writ of habeas corpus (Texas
Department of Criminal Justice Inter-Office Communication to Derrick O'Brien, dated March
27, 2006).
12.
The first drug, sodium thiopental [also known as sodium pentothal] is a barbiturate sedative. Two grams of sodium thiopental is approximately five to eight times the dosage that would be used to render a 176 pound individual unconscious for general surgery. Within moments after the injection of the sodium thiopental, the inmate will be rendered unconscious. The condemned inmate will slip into unconsciousness in the same manner as that experienced by a general surgery patient. The probability of the inmate regaining consciousness within the ensuing ten minutes is 3/1000 of one percent. The probability of the inmate regaining consciousness by minute fifteen is 6/1000 of one percent. The probability of the inmate regaining consciousness within twenty minutes never rises above 1/100 of one percent. In light of the inordinately high dosage, the weight or other physical attributes peculiar to a particular inmate will have a negligible impact on these probabilities.
Id.
13. Appendix C. 14. Curare is a dried extract from a vine used by South American Indians to poison arrow
tips and, by doctors, as a muscle relaxant. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
(http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=curare) (last visited on May 17,
2006).
15. 16. 17. 18. Florida, Fla. Stat. §§ 828.058 and 828.065; Georgia, Ga. Code Ann. § 4-11-5.1;
Maine, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., tit. 17, § 1044; Maryland, Md. Code Ann., Criminal Law, § 10-611; Massachusetts, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140 § 151A; New Jersey, N.j. Stat. Ann. 4:22-19.3;
New York, N.y. Agric. & Mkts Law § 374; Oklahoma, Okla. Stat. tit. 4, § 501; and
Tennessee, Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-17-303. States that require the use of a particular method for
animal euthanasia, and therefore implicitly ban the use of neuromuscular blocking agents are:
Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-344a; Delaware, Del. Code Ann. tit. 3, § 8001; Illinois,
510 Ill. Comp. Stat. 70/2.09; Kansas, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 47-1718(a); Kentucky, Ky. Rev.
Stat. Ann. § 321.181(17) and Ky. Admin. Regs. 16:090 section 5(1); Louisiana, La. Rev.
Stat. Ann. § 3:2465; Missouri, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 578.005(7); South Carolina, S.c. Code Ann.
§ 47-3-420; Texas, Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 821.052(a). Most frequently, these
states require either the use of the sedative sodium pentobarbitol, or adherence to the American
Veterinary Medical Association Panel on Euthanasia's published method.
19. 20. 21. 22. 23.