Medical Expert: Billy Ray Irick Tortured to Death in Tennessee Execution

Billy Ray Irick (pic­tured) was tor­tured to death dur­ing his August 9, 2018 exe­cu­tion in Tennessee, accord­ing to one the nation’s leading anesthesiologists. 

In an affi­davit sub­mit­ted to the Tennessee Supreme Court on September 6 as part of an appeal filed by state death-row pris­on­ers chal­leng­ing Tennessee’s exe­cu­tion process, anes­the­si­ol­o­gist Dr. David Lubarsky, the Vice Chancellor for Human Health Sciences at the University of California-Davis Health, said Irick was not prop­er­ly anes­thetized dur­ing his exe­cu­tion and expe­ri­enced the tor­tur­ous effects of the sec­ond and third lethal-injec­tion drugs while still con­scious. Lubarsky, who pre­vi­ous­ly tes­ti­fied dur­ing a low­er court hear­ing on the pris­on­ers’ lethal-injec­tion chal­lenge, exam­ined wit­ness descrip­tions of Irick’s exe­cu­tion and con­clud­ed ​“to a rea­son­able degree of med­ical cer­tain­ty” that Irick ​“was aware and sen­sate dur­ing his exe­cu­tion and would have expe­ri­enced the feel­ing of chok­ing, drown­ing in his own flu­ids, suf­fo­cat­ing, being buried alive, and the burn­ing sen­sa­tion caused by the injec­tion of the potassium chloride.” 

Witnesses report­ed that Irick choked, moved his head, and strained his fore­arms against restraints, all of which, Dr. Lubarsky said, are signs that he was able to feel the effects of the drugs. Lubarsky also not­ed that prison offi­cials taped Irick’s hands — a step unnec­es­sary to the exe­cu­tion because Irick’s wrists were already restrained — pre­vent­ing wit­ness­es from observ­ing move­ments of the fin­gers and hands that would have been ​“a clear indi­ca­tor” that he was not anesthetized. 

The sec­ond and third drugs used in Tennessee are known to be excru­ci­at­ing­ly painful if a pris­on­er is not ful­ly uncon­scious. A court plead­ing filed by Kelley Henry, an attor­ney rep­re­sent­ing Tennessee’s death-row pris­on­ers in their legal chal­lenge to the exe­cu­tion pro­to­col, graph­i­cal­ly described the exe­cu­tion process. ​“This case is about whether it is con­sti­tu­tion­al to inject a human with a small bot­tle of acid — which will destroy the lin­ing of their lungs and cause them to drown in blood — and then to inject them with a par­a­lyt­ic that will leave them con­scious but expres­sion­less — unable to speak or scream — feel­ing as if they are buried alive, and final­ly to stop their heart with an injec­tion that will, in their last minute of life, cause them to chem­i­cal­ly burn alive.” 

Prior to Irick’s exe­cu­tion, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor dis­sent­ed from a denial of a stay, writ­ing, ​“In refus­ing to grant Irick a stay, the Court today turns a blind eye to a proven like­li­hood that the State of Tennessee is on the verge of inflict­ing sev­er­al min­utes of tor­tur­ous pain on an inmate in its cus­tody, while shroud­ing his suf­fer­ing behind a veneer of paralysis.” 

Records from Irick’s exe­cu­tion also indi­cate that the state vio­lat­ed its own exe­cu­tion pro­to­col by fail­ing to pre­pare an addi­tion­al dose of mida­zo­lam, the drug used to sedate him. New fil­ings in the lethal-injec­tion suit said that the state’s actions showed that the ​“pro­to­col is mean­ing­less” and ​“cre­ates a sub­stan­tial risk of severe pain and suffering.” 

Tennessee pros­e­cu­tors filed a response on September 13 ask­ing the court not to con­sid­er Lubarsky’s dec­la­ra­tion, say­ing his opin­ion was based on hearsay and had­n’t been sub­ject to cross-examination. 

The Tennessee high court has removed the case from the state’s inter­me­di­ate appel­late court and set an expe­dit­ing brief­ing sched­ule, an unusu­al move that Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Sharon Lee crit­i­cized as a ​“rock­et dock­et” that under­mines the pos­si­bil­i­ty of mean­ing­ful appel­late review. On September 14, the Tennessee Supreme Court issued an order defer­ring a rul­ing until after oral argu­ment on the appeal of the lethal injec­tion chal­lenge on October 3.