Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/116

 20

GLOSSIP v. GROSS SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting

Lockett’s execution involved “only 100 milligrams of mid­ azolam,” ante, at 28, but as explained previously, more is not necessarily better given midazolam’s ceiling effect. The Wood execution is perhaps even more probative. Despite being given over 750 milligrams of midazolam, Wood gasped and snorted for nearly two hours. These reactions were, according to Dr. Lubarsky, inconsistent with Wood being fully anesthetized, App. 177–178, and belie the claim that a lesser dose of 500 milligrams would somehow suffice. The Court attempts to distinguish the Wood execution on the ground that the timing of Arizona’s administration of midazolam was different. Ante, at 28. But as Dr. Lubarsky testified, it did not “matter” whether in Wood’s execution the “midazolam was introduced all at once or over. . . multiple doses,” because “[t]he drug has a sufficient half life that the effect is cumulative.” App. 220; see also Saari 253 (midazolam’s “elimination half-life ranges from 1.7 to 3.5 h[ours]”).6 Nor does the fact that Wood’s dose of midazolam was paired with hydromor­ phone rather than a paralytic and potassium chromide, see ante, at 29, appear to have any relevance—other than that the use of this analgesic drug may have meant that Wood did not experience the same degree of searing pain that an inmate executed under Oklahoma’s protocol may face. By contrast, Florida’s use of this same three-drug proto­ col in 11 executions, see ante, at 28 (citing Brief for State of Florida as Amicus Curiae 1), tells us virtually nothing. Although these executions have featured no obvious mis­ haps, the key word is “obvious.” Because the protocol —————— 6 The Court asserts that the State refuted these contentions, pointing to Dr. Evans’ testimony that 750 milligrams of the drug “might not have the effect that was sought” if administered over an hour. Tr. 667; see ante, at 28, n. 6. But as has been the theme here, this pronounce­ ment was entirely unsupported, and appears to be contradicted by the secondary sources cited by petitioners’ experts.