On October 29, a New York Times edi­to­r­i­al raised many con­cerns regard­ing the recent exe­cu­tion of Native American Jeffrey Landrigan in Arizona. The Times said ​“the sys­tem failed him at almost every lev­el, most dis­turbing­ly at the Supreme Court.” Landrigan’s exe­cu­tion gar­nered nation­al atten­tion because a nation­wide short­age of sodi­um thiopen­tal forced the state to seek the drug from for­eign sup­pli­ers. Despite repeat­ed orders from a fed­er­al District Court judge, Arizona refused to divulge the source of their lethal drug sup­ply. The judge stayed the exe­cu­tion based on these con­cerns, but the stay was over­turned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5 – 4 rul­ing that said there was ​“no evi­dence in the record to sug­gest that the drug obtained from a for­eign source is unsafe.” But, as the edi­to­r­i­al point­ed out, ​“There was no evi­dence — either way — because Arizona defied orders to pro­vide it.” In addi­tion to con­cerns about the drugs used in Landrigan’s exe­cu­tion, recent state­ments made by Landrigan’s sen­tenc­ing judge ques­tioned the appro­pri­ate­ness of a death sen­tence in this case. Judge Cheryl Hendrix, who presided over Landrigan’s tri­al, recent­ly told the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency that she would not have sen­tenced Landrigan to death if his tri­al attor­ney pre­sent­ed evi­dence of the defendant’s brain dam­age and oth­er prob­lems. The Board’s vote was 2 – 2, so clemen­cy was denied. Read full editorial below.

October 28, 2010
No Justification

Two years ago, when a splin­tered Supreme Court approved lethal injec­tion as a means of exe­cu­tion in Baze v. Rees, Justice John Paul Stevens made a prophe­cy. Instead of end­ing the con­tro­ver­sy, he said, the rul­ing would raise ques­tions ​“about the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for the death penal­ty itself.” Since then, evi­dence has con­tin­ued to mount, show­ing the huge injus­tice of the death penal­ty — and the par­tic­u­lar bar­barism of this form of execution.

In the case of Jeffrey Landrigan, con­vict­ed of mur­der and exe­cut­ed by Arizona on Tuesday, the sys­tem failed him at almost every lev­el, most dis­turbing­ly at the Supreme Court. In a 5‑to‑4 vote, the court’s con­ser­v­a­tive major­i­ty allowed the exe­cu­tion to pro­ceed based on a stark misrepresentation.

Of the 35 states that allow the death penal­ty, all now exe­cute by lethal injec­tion. Most use a sequence of drugs that is sup­posed to pro­vide a pain­less death, but when it is admin­is­tered incor­rect­ly it caus­es agony that amounts to tor­ture. Veterinarians say the method doesn’t meet the stan­dard for euthanizing animals.

Arizona’s plan for Mr. Landrigan’s exe­cu­tion was thrown off by a short­age of sodi­um thiopen­tal, one of three drugs used in stan­dard lethal injec­tions. The only mak­er approved by the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t been able to get a crit­i­cal ingre­di­ent for almost a year. The state obtained the drug from a foreign maker.

When Mr. Landrigan tried to ascer­tain its effec­tive­ness for sedat­ing him so he wouldn’t feel the pain of the oth­er drugs, Arizona refused to divulge the infor­ma­tion. After the state defied four orders from a fed­er­al dis­trict judge to pro­duce it, the judge stayed the execution.

When the case got to the Supreme Court, the major­i­ty over­turned the stay, say­ing there was ​“no evi­dence in the record to sug­gest that the drug obtained from a for­eign source is unsafe.” There was no evi­dence — either way — because Arizona defied orders to provide it.

The court’s white­wash high­lights the arbi­trari­ness of Mr. Landrigan’s exe­cu­tion. Cheryl Hendrix, the retired Arizona judge who presided over his tri­al, recent­ly said, ​“Mr. Landrigan would not have been sen­tenced to death” if she had been giv­en the med­ical evi­dence of the defendant’s brain dam­age and oth­er fac­tors. Mr. Landrigan’s inept tri­al lawyer didn’t sub­mit the evidence.

She no longer had the pow­er to alter his fate, but, in an affi­davit for the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency, Ms. Hendrix sup­port­ed his plea to have his death sen­tence com­mut­ed to life. ​“Since the courts have not cor­rect­ed this injus­tice,” she stat­ed, ​“I am com­pelled to sub­mit this dec­la­ra­tion on Mr. Landrigan’s behalf.” The Supreme Court should have upheld the stay of exe­cu­tion and forced the state to deliv­er the infor­ma­tion called for. It failed, shamefully.

(“No Justification,” New York Times, October 29, 2010). See Arbitrariness, Lethal Injection and U.S. Supreme Court.

Citation Guide