In addi­tion to the main brief sub­mit­ted by the Petitioner in Baze v. Rees, sev­er­al ami­cus curi­ae briefs have been filed in sup­port of the inmates from Kentucky who are chal­leng­ing the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of lethal injec­tions as prac­ticed in their state before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is like­ly to be heard in January 2008 and decid­ed by June. It appears that exe­cu­tions around the coun­try have been put on hold pend­ing the Court’s deci­sion.

The ami­cus (“friend of the court”) briefs submitted include:

  • The Death Penalty Clinic at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law. This ​“lit­i­gants” brief details how lethal injec­tion exe­cu­tions are per­formed by ​“untrained, unqual­i­fied prison employ­ees using inad­e­quate equip­ment and fol­low­ing incom­pre­hen­si­ble pro­to­cols.” The Clinic sur­veyed thou­sands of pages of doc­u­ments from more than a dozen states, con­clud­ing that states have ​“turned a blind eye” to the forsee­able prob­lems inher­ent in the three-drug lethal injection formula. 
  • The Lewis Stein Center for Law & Ethics at the Fordham University School of Law. This brief describes the his­to­ry of the three-drug lethal injec­tion pro­to­col used in vir­tu­al­ly every death penal­ty state, and the move­ment toward meth­ods of exe­cu­tion that were con­sis­tent with ​“evolv­ing stan­dards of decen­cy.” The brief presents evi­dence that the present method of lethal injec­tion was not the result of an informed deliberative process.
  • The American Civil Liberties Union and the Rutherford Institute. Arguing that lethal injec­tions vio­late the Eighth Amendment, this brief shows how ​“lethal injec­tion pro­ce­dures and exe­cu­tions have been, and con­tin­ue to be, shroud­ed in secrecy.” 
  • Physicians and nurs­es, with a range of exper­tise in fields such as med­ical ethics, crit­i­cal care, end-of-life care, phar­ma­col­o­gy and anes­the­si­ol­o­gy. The brief informs the Court that ​“the med­ical and med­ical ethics com­mu­ni­ties have reject­ed the intro­duc­tion of neu­ro­mus­cu­lar block­ing agents” used in lethal injec­tion exe­cu­tions because of the ​“sig­nif­i­cant risks” that they pose.
  • Veterinarians, with exten­sive expe­ri­enced in vet­eri­nary anes­the­sia. According to this brief, ​“Kentucky’s lethal injec­tion pro­to­col would not meet the min­i­mum stan­dards for the humane euth­a­niza­tion of ani­mals.” The brief fur­ther explores oth­er risks asso­ci­at­ed with the chem­i­cals used in Kentucky’s current protocol.
  • Human Rights Watch. The brief argues that the Court’s ​“Eighth Amendment jurispru­dence has looked to inter­na­tion­al stan­dards and prac­tices in giv­ing mean­ing to the pro­hi­bi­tion against cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ment,” and that it should do so in deciding Baze.

The briefs filed by var­i­ous ami­ci, as well as the Petitioner’s brief, are avail­able here. (Source: Death Penalty Clinic, U.C. Berkeley School of Law, Nov. 13, 2007). See also DPIC’s Supreme Court and Lethal Injection pages.

Tags
Citation Guide