Secrecy

FBI Documents Show States' Claims of Threats to Execution Drug Suppliers Were Exaggerated

FBI records show that state claims that execution drug suppliers have been the subject of threats by anti-death penalty activists are largely unsubstantiated and exaggerated, according to an investigation by BuzzFeed NewsBuzzFeed found that "few concrete examples" of the alleged harassment, intimidation, and physical threats states claim have been made against drug suppliers, and that "the states’ marquee example — in which the FBI allegedly investigated a serious bomb threat sent to a drug supplier — is contradicted by internal FBI documents." Instead, BuzzFeed found, "the real danger to drug suppliers appears to be legal and economic risk, not risk of violence." Texas and Ohio have claimed secrecy was necessary to protect the safety of potential drug suppliers, citing an alleged threat against a disgraced and now defunct Tulsa, Oklahoma pharmacy, The Apothecary Shoppe, that had been supplying execution drugs to Missouri. That "threat" appears to have consisted of an email sent by a retired college professor who used his own name and included his own phone number, and which the professor has characterized as a warning to the pharmacy to be cautious. An expert witness for the two states—a former Secret Service officer named Lawrence Cunningham who is now employed by a private security company—testified in litigation over their secrecy policies that the email constituted a "serious threat," as evidenced by the fact that it was investigated by the FBI. However, FBI and Tulsa Police Department records show that neither agency was aware of any threats against the pharmacy until a reporter called the FBI months later to ask about alleged threats. The pharmacy had not filed any complaint about the email and, FBI records show, did not come forward with copies of any threatening emails after having been given an opportunity to do so. Cunningham also testified in the Ohio case that the Texas Department of Public Safety had investigated the email, including interviewing the professor—a claim that is contradicted by Cunningham's own sworn testimony in the Texas case and, BuzzFeed says, by Texas DPS documents, sworn statements of the DPS department head, and FBI internal documents. Indeed, Colonel Steven McCraw of Texas DPS testified in a deposition, “I did not do any investigations. We didn’t look at any people. We didn’t do anything.” Officials in Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri also exaggerated threats by stating suppliers were "harmed" or "threatened" by facing lawsuits or disparaging comments in the media. 

Pharmaceutical Companies Reiterate Opposition to Participating in Executions as States Scramble for Execution Drugs

Distribution restrictions put in place by major pharmaceutical companies in the United States against misuse of their medicines and export regulations instituted by the European Union have made it increasingly difficult for states to obtain supplies of drugs for use in executions. However, despite these restrictions, some states have obtained pharmaceutical products manufactured by these companies for use in lethal injections. The Influence reports that the Commonwealth of Virginia obtained lethal injection drugs produced by the pharmaceutical company Mylan—rocuronium bromide, which induces paralysis, and potassium chloride, which stops the heart—from a large North Carolina based drug wholesaler, Cardinal Health. Mylan wrote to the Virginia prisons seeking assurances that use of its medicines in the future would not be diverted to any "purpose inconsistent with their approved labeling and applicable standards of care." Recently, the Associated Press discovered that the supply of vecuronium bromide obtained by the Arkansas Department of Correction was produced by a subsidiary of Pfizer. Pfizer announced in May 2016 that it opposed the use of its products in executions, stating, "Pfizer makes its products to enhance and save the lives of the patients we serve. Consistent with these values, Pfizer strongly objects to the use of its products as lethal injections for capital punishment." While state secrecy practices leave it unclear from whom Arkansas obtained the restricted drug, Rachel Hooper, a spokesperson for Pfizer, said, "We have implemented a comprehensive strategy and enhanced restricted distribution protocols for a select group of products to help combat their unauthorized use for capital punishment. Pfizer is currently communicating with states to remind them of our policy." As pharmaceutical companies have made their drugs more difficult for states to use, prisons have turned to alternate sources. The Alabama Department of Corrections contacted about 30 compounding pharmacies in an effort to obtain lethal injection drugs, but all refused. Compounding pharmacist Donnie Calhoun said, "For me, as a healthcare professional, I want to help people live longer. The last thing I want to do is help someone die." A Virginia pharmacist who was contacted by the attorney general's office also refused, saying, "No one will do it." Virginia recently adopted a lethal injection secrecy statute that would conceal the identity of its drug supplier, joining many other death penalty states in shielding key information about executions from public scrutiny.

Report: Proposal Billed as Speeding Up California Executions Would Actually Be Costly, Time-Consuming

An initiative on the California ballot this November billed by its supporters as a reform alternative to abolishing the state's death penalty will cost the state tens of millions of dollars to implement, according to an analysis by the Alarcón Advocacy Center at Loyola Law School, and "will not speed up executions." The report, California Votes 2016: An Analysis of the Competing Death Penalty Ballot Initiatives, predicts that Proposition 66 (The Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016), would "cost millions more than the [state's] already expensive death penalty system" and "will only make matters worse by creating more delays and further clogging the state’s over-burdened court system," adding "layers of appeals to a system already facing an insurmountable backlog of decades of death penalty appeals waiting to be decided." The report states that provisions in Prop 66 to exempt lethal injection protocols from public oversight "will certainly be subject to litigation ... on constitutional and other grounds, should Prop 66 pass, adding yet more delays to death penalty cases." The report criticizes Prop 66 as "fail[ing] to make the constitutional changes required to deliver the results it promises" and concludes that "its proposals are so convoluted that they are likely to create many new problems that will not only complicate the administration of the death penalty system, but will also impact and harm the rest of California’s legal system." The report contrasts Prop 66 with an opposing ballot initiative, Proposition 62 (The Justice That Works Act of 2016), which would abolish the death penalty in favor of life without parole. According to the state Legislative Analyst, Prop 66 will cost "tens of millions of dollars per year," while Prop 62 would save California taxpayers $150 million per year. The authors of the Loyola report, Paula Mitchell, executive director of the Alarcón Advocacy Center, and Nancy Haydt, a board member of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, summarize the issues before the voters as follows: "The proponents of both Prop 62 and Prop 66 agree that California’s death penalty system is dysfunctional, exorbitantly expensive, and failing to achieve its purpose. Prop 62 responds to this failed system by replacing it entirely, adapting the existing regime of life imprisonment without parole to cover all persons who are convicted of murder with special circumstances. Prop 66 responds to this failure with a sweeping array of convoluted proposed 'fixes.' Our detailed analysis reveals that most of these changes will actually make the death penalty system worse, and will result in its problems negatively impacting the rest of the legal system in California."

Arkansas Court Puts Lethal Injection Ruling on Hold, Blocking Executions Pending U.S. Supreme Court Review

On July 21, a divided Arkansas Supreme Court voted 4-3 to deny a request by state death row prisoners to reconsider its recent decision upholding Arkansas' lethal injection protocol and secrecy law, but in another 4-3 vote, the court issued an order staying the mandate, delaying the decision from taking effect until the U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to consider an appeal. The stay order prevents the state from setting new execution dates before the U.S. Supreme Court acts on the prisoners' appeal. The same three Arkansas justices who dissented from the court's initial lethal injection decision in June would have granted the rehearing requested by the death row prisoners. However, Arkansas Chief Justice Howard Brill joined the three dissenting justices in staying the ruling pending action by the U.S. Supreme Court on the lethal injection decision. Eight inmates have completed their standard appeals, and Governor Asa Hutchinson had indicated that he intended to set execution dates for those inmates as soon as possible. Executions were previously in doubt because the state's supply of the drug vecuronium bromide, used as a paralytic agent in the state's three-drug execution protocol, had expired. But Arkansas recently announced that it was able to obtain a new supply of the drug from an unnamed source. The state's supply of potassium chloride, the final drug used in executions to stop the prisoner's heart, expires on January 1, 2017. Because of the timeline for petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court, it is unlikely that Arkansas will be able to resume executions before its supply of that drug expires.   

Status of Arkansas Death Penalty Uncertain Following Expiration of Lethal Injection Drugs

Just days after a split Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the state's execution protocol, Arkansas' supply of vecuronium bromide—a paralytic agent used in the state's three-drug lethal injection protocol—expired, leaving the status of future executions unclear. At that time, Governor Asa Hutchinson said that he wanted the Department of Correction to obtain a new supply of the drug rather than change the state's method of execution. In 2015, the state spent $25,000 for lethal injection drugs and set eight execution dates. Death row prisoners challenged the state's execution protocol and secrecy law, which they say violated the settlement in a challenge to an earlier protocol. The new litigation, which raised critical questions about whether the new protocol might result in an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual execution, took nearly a year to resolve, ending just before the June 30 expiration date of the execution drugs. Because every major manufacturer of pharmaceuticals in the U.S. opposes the use of their products in executions, Governor Hutchinson said it is "unknown" whether Arkansas will be able to obtain a new supply of the drugs. He again expressed hesitation at the idea of changing the state's lethal injection protocol, saying, "You don't want to deviate from what's already been tested and approved[;] otherwise you're starting all over again." The Arkansas Department of Correction would not disclose what efforts it has made to obtain new execution drugs. The state last carried out an execution in 2005.  

Divided State Court Upholds Arkansas Lethal Injection Protocol and Secrecy Law, Potentially Opening Path to Eight Executions

A divided Arkansas Supreme Court voted 4-3 on June 23 to uphold the state's lethal injection protocol and secrecy policy. The decision potentially opens the path for the state to move forward with eight executions that had been stayed pending the outcome of this litigation. However, it is unclear whether executions will resume because Arkansas' supply of lethal injection drugs expires on June 30, and the supplier from which it obtained those drugs has indicated that it will no longer sell execution drugs to the state. The Arkansas Department of Corrections has told the Associated Press that its "inventory sheet ... has not changed" since April, when it disclosed that its doses of the paralytic drug, vecuronium bromide, are set to expire. A prison official's affidavit, submitted during the court proceedings, said that the state had contacted at least five additional drug wholesalers or manufacturers, all of whom said they either would not sell the drugs to the state or would not sell them without the makers' permission. Arkansas has not carried out an execution since 2005. The death row prisoners had argued that Arkansas's proposed execution protocol and its secrecy policy, which enables the state to conceal the identities of execution drug suppliers, could result in unconstitutionally cruel and unusual executions. Justice Robin Wynne, who dissented, said he believed the inmates had successfully proved that claim. In a separate dissent, Justice Josephine Linker Hart said she would have ordered the state to disclose the source of the drugs. The majority decision also rejected prisoners' argument that the secrecy law violates a settlement that guaranteed them access to the now-secret information, declaring that the settlement agreement was not a binding contract.

Louisiana Executions on Hold Until At Least 2018

Louisiana will not conduct any executions in 2016 or 2017 as a result of a new court order issued with the consent of the parties in federal proceedings challenging the constitutionality of Louisiana's lethal injection process. At the request of the Louisiana Attorney General, a federal judge has delayed proceedings on the state's lethal injection protocol for an additional 18 months, making January 2018 the earliest date the state could resume executions. Attorney General Jeff Landry asked for the extension because the facts of the case are in a "fluid state" and it would be "a waste of resources and time to litigate this matter at present time." The request marked the third time in two years that the state has asked to delay the trial. In June 2015, after the state's execution drugs had expired, its lawyers told the court that Louisiana lacked the drugs necessary to carry out executions. In February, the Louisiana Department of Corrections indicated that the state still did not have the drugs needed to conduct an execution. Previously, in 2013, the state had considered purchasing execution drugs from a Tulsa, Oklahoma, compounding pharmacy that was not licensed to provide drugs to any pharmacy in Louisiana, making any purchase of drugs from that company by the Louisiana State Penitentiary Pharmacy illegal under state law. That compounding pharmacy, which secretly sold execution drugs to Missouri during the same period, was implicated in nearly 2,000 violations of Oklahoma pharmacy regulations. The state later obtained one of the execution drugs it needed from a hospital in Lake Charles, misrepresenting to the hospital that it needed the drugs for medical purposes. Christopher Sepulvado, one of the two inmates named in the challenge to the constitutionality of Louisiana's execution procedure, was originally scheduled to be executed in 2014. Louisiana's protocol allows for either a one-drug execution using pentobarbital, or a two-drug execution using midazolam and hydromorphone. The state does not have the drugs necessary for either option, according to a spokesperson for the Depatment of Corrections. Louisiana's last execution was in 2010.

As Legitimate Market for Execution Drugs Dries Up, States' Secret Execution Practices Become Increasingly Questionable

Pfizer's recent announcement that it was tightening controls against what it calls the misuse of its medicines in executions highlights an on-going struggle between states desperate for execution drugs and a medical community that believes its involvement in the lethal injection process violates its medical and corporate missions and the ethical standards of the pharmaceutical and health professions. As Pfizer and nearly two dozen other pharmaceutical companies have ended open market access to drugs potentially used in executions, states have responded by increasingly shrouding the execution process in secrecy. The states "are mainly concerned about losing their providers of lethal-injection drugs should the companies’ names become public," says Linc Caplan in a recent article in The New Yorker. Otherwise, "companies that do not want their products associated with executions will know that their drugs are being used." He reports that since the Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's execution protocol in 2008, 20 states have responded to drug shortages by abandoning protocols that had been substantially similar to Kentucky’s, making "unfettered substitutions" to their protocols in "desperate attempts to adhere to their execution schedules.” Caplan reports that States "have also been increasingly misleading in their efforts to obtain drugs for executions." He cites documents showing that one Ohio official urged state drug purchasers to identify themselves as from the Department of Mental Health and warned they should "not mention anything about corrections in the phone call or what we use the drug for." Louisiana similarly obtained execution drugs from a local hospital, which mistakenly assumed they were needed for medical use. Last week, an Oklahoma grand jury report described that state's secrecy practices as producing a "paranoia" that "clouded [prison officials'] judgment and caused administrators to blatantly violate their own policies." An article by Chris McDaniel in BuzzFeed after the release of that report documented that the same secrecy and lack of oversight criticized by the Oklahoma grand jury is common in other states, and has contributed to execution problems in Missouri, Georgia, and Ohio. Arizona and Missouri paid executioners in cash, and Missouri's mismanagement of that fund likely violated federal income tax law. Missouri's secrecy, McDaniels writes, also "allowed it to purchase execution drugs from a pharmacy in Tulsa, Oklahoma, that was not licensed in Missouri and had questionable pharmaceutical practices." Other states, like Texas and Arizona "have used the secrecy to purchase drugs illegally," he reports. 

Pages