A Los Angeles Times arti­cle on the recent hear­ings in fed­er­al District Court regard­ing the California’s lethal injec­tion process was enti­tled ​“The Chaos Behind California Executions.” Excerpts from the article follow:

“Operational Procedure No. 770,” the state’s name for exe­cu­tion
by lethal injec­tion, is per­formed in a dark, cramped room by men and women
who know lit­tle, if any­thing, about the dead­ly drugs they inject under
extreme stress.
…
Witnesses depict­ed exe­cu­tions by lethal injec­tion — long con­sid­ered a more
humane alter­na­tive to the gas cham­ber or the elec­tric chair — as almost
hap­haz­ard events, and med­ical experts on both sides could not rule out the
pos­si­bil­i­ty that one or more inmates had been con­scious and expe­ri­enced an
excru­ci­at­ing sen­sa­tion of drown­ing or stran­gu­la­tion before death.
…
After the IVs are set up, the cham­ber’s heavy, sol­id steel door is shut and
locked, and the inmate is left alone. A prison employ­ee leans into the door
to seal it, an appar­ent holdover from the days when the prison had to ensure
tox­ic gas would not escape.

The exe­cu­tion team retires to an adja­cent room, where mem­bers insert the
exe­cu­tion drugs by syringe into IV lines that run through the wall and into
the inmate’s arms.

That ante­room is often packed with state offi­cials, pros­e­cu­tors and oth­er
gov­ern­ment vis­i­tors. There were ​“so many peo­ple in that room you did­n’t even
know who they were” and why they were there, Dr. Donald Calvo, a prison
doc­tor, tes­ti­fied in a depo­si­tion.

Former San Quentin Warden Steven W. Ornoski said that dur­ing one exe­cu­tion,
​“I don’t believe I could move from my spot much, if any.” He once had to
tell some­one to leave. It was a doc­tor.

A nurse work­ing in the jammed room said she had to pass syringes to an
out­stretched hand whose own­er she could not see. The same nurse said she did
not know the ori­gins of a doc­u­ment with instruc­tions for the drugs. She had
sim­ply found it ​“in the gas cham­ber.”

To pre­vent the exe­cu­tion­ers from being seen or iden­ti­fied by wit­ness­es,
their room is illu­mi­nat­ed only by a red light. A doc­tor who filled out
exe­cu­tion records said the room was so dark he had to use a flash­light to
see what he was writ­ing.

The IV bags hang from ducts so high that it would be impos­si­ble to deter­mine
if every­thing was work­ing prop­er­ly, tes­ti­fied Dr. Mark Heath, a Columbia
University anes­the­si­ol­o­gist and expert wit­ness for Morales. A mem­ber of the
exe­cu­tion team said in a depo­si­tion that she believed ​“the jan­i­tor” helped
set the bags.

(Los Angeles Times, ​“The Chaos Behind California Executions,” Oct. 2, 2006).

Following the hear­ings, the pre­sid­ing judge asked the par­ties to sub­mit addi­tion­al briefs on the following subjects:

1. In light of the evi­dence in the record, what steps can and should Defendants take to improve their actu­al imple­men­ta­tion of the three-drug pro­to­col described in OP 770? In
answer­ing this ques­tion, please address, with­out lim­i­ta­tion:

(a) the qual­i­fi­ca­tions, recruit­ment, screen­ing, and train­ing of the exe­cu­tion team;
(b) the phys­i­cal aspects of the exe­cu­tion cham­ber and appa­ra­tus, includ­ing the
avail­able space, light­ing, sight lines, length and posi­tion­ing of IV tub­ing, and
mon­i­tor­ing equip­ment; and (c) record-keep­ing, includ­ing the prepa­ra­tion, con­tent and reli­a­bil­i­ty of exe­cu­tion logs and records indi­cat­ing the dis­po­si­tion of drugs used in train­ing and in executions.

The Court is par­tic­u­lar­ly inter­est­ed in the par­ties’ views as to whether the expe­ri­ence of oth­er
juris­dic­tions that use a three-drug exe­cu­tion pro­to­col might be use­ful with respect to these
matters.

2. Assuming the con­tin­ued use of pan­curo­ni­um bro­mide and potas­si­um chlo­ride in
exe­cu­tions, what are the advan­tages and dis­ad­van­tages of using a longer-act­ing bar­bi­tu­rate, such as pen­to­bar­bi­tal, with or with­out the use of a nar­cot­ic, to induce uncon­scious­ness? What
mod­i­fi­ca­tions to OP 770 would be necessary?

3. Again assum­ing the con­tin­ued use of pan­curo­ni­um bro­mide and potas­si­um chlo­ride in
exe­cu­tions, what steps, in addi­tion to those dis­cussed in response to the first ques­tion above, can and should Defendants take to mon­i­tor inmates’ lev­els of uncon­scious­ness pri­or to and fol­low­ing injec­tion of these drugs? For exam­ple, would the reli­a­bil­i­ty of the pro­to­col be improved by the use of a BIS mon­i­tor or an EEG? Is the involve­ment of med­ical pro­fes­sion­als nec­es­sary, and if so, what type(s) of med­ical pro­fes­sion­als should be involved in what ways? In the con­text of this ques­tion, what would be the advan­tages and dis­ad­van­tages of elim­i­nat­ing pan­curo­ni­um bro­mide from the protocol?

4. What would be the advan­tages and dis­ad­van­tages of an exe­cu­tion pro­to­col that
achieves its pur­pose by using one or more seda­tives, such as sodi­um thiopen­tal or pen­to­bar­bi­tal, with or with­out a nar­cot­ic, and elim­i­nates the oth­er two drugs that cur­rent­ly are used? Should a sin­gle dose, mul­ti­ple dos­es, a con­tin­u­ous infu­sion, or some com­bi­na­tion of these be used? What mod­i­fi­ca­tions to OP 770 would be necessary?

(Morales v. Tilton, Request for Briefing, U.S. District Court for the N. Dist. of CA, San Jose Div., Oct. 3, 2006). See DPIC’s Lethal Injection Page.

Citation Guide