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.