Bucklew v. Precythe

(1) Whether, when evaluating a method of execution as-applied challenge, courts should assume that medical staff is competent to ensure an execution will go as planned despite an inmate’s rare and serious medical condition; (2) whether a court may look to the record and determine that a fact finder could conclude that proposed methods of execution are significantly different, or whether there must be a single witness to compare the risks of the State’s and inmate’s proposed methods of execution; (3) whether the Eighth Amendment requires that an inmate challenging a method of execution must prove that another available method will substantially reduce their risk of suffering due to unique medical conditions; and (4) whether Petitioner, in this case, met the burden established in Glossip v. Gross by proving the procedures to be used in his proposed method of execution, the severity of the pain likely to be produced, and how the procedure compares to the State’s method.

Petitioner, a death-row inmate, suffers from a rare disease known as cavernous hemangioma. An expert concluded that, due to this disease, Petitioner will suffer from “the excruciating pain of prolonged suffocation” during his execution. Petitioner challenged the lethal injection method as applied, claiming that the excruciating pain and needless suffering of the State’s method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment. A panel on the Eighth Circuit held that the execution is not cruel and unusual, reasoning that Petitioner did not prove that the alternative method of lethal gas would substantially reduce his risk of needless suffering. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Petitioner argues that the Eighth Circuit erred in requiring courts to assume that medical staff are competent to deal with the condition and the execution will happen as intended; that there must be a single witness to compare the methods and find that one is better; and that an inmate challenging a method of execution as applied must provide an alternative that is “feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain.” In addition to addressing those issues, the Supreme Court asks the parties to address whether Petitioner met the standard set forth in Glossip v. Gross 576 U. S. ____ (2015), requiring Petitioner to prove the procedures in his alternative method, the pain and duration likely to be produced, and how the alternative method compares to the State’s method.