Cite Risk of "Extreme Pain and Suffering" Under Current Protocol
Attorneys for Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman Available for Comment
Seventeen prominent Tennessee medical professionals filed an amicus brief today with the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Tennessee death row inmate Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman challenging the constitutionality of Tennessee’s lethal injection protocol.
On February 15, 2006, lawyers for Abdur’Rahman filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Court challenging the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality of the state’s lethal injection protocol. Abdur’Rahman argues that the protocol, and the use of the drug pancuronium bromide, or “Pavulon,” in particular, is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment because of the risk that it will result in his suffering inhuman pain during his execution. Tennessee law and the ethical standards of the American Veterinary Medical Association prohibit the use of Pavulon in animal euthanasia because it is considered inhumane.
The doctors who participated in the amicus brief are prominent members of the Tennessee medical community, many of whom have specialized knowledge of anesthesia and surgery. In light of the protocol’s use of Pavulon and potassium chloride, these experts criticize the “myriad of deficiencies” in the Tennessee lethal injection protocol which lacks any safeguards against a “torturous” death. The experts are especially alarmed by three factors: the use of a highly unstable and sensitive drug, sodium thiopental, as the anesthetic for lethal injection; the lack of training of the individuals who administer the drugs; and the failure of the protocol to monitor the effectiveness of anesthesia.
As the experts state in the amicus brief, “There can be no dispute that the injection of either Pavulon or potassium chloride in an inmate who is not adequately anesthetized would…inflict unnecessary extreme pain and suffering.” Bradley A. MacLean, a lawyer for Abdur’Rahman, commented, “It is significant that medical experts of this caliber and prominence feel strongly enough about these issues to state their professional opinions to the Court at this stage of the case.”
In 1987, Abdur’Rahman (formerly James Lee Jones) was convicted of the stabbing death of a drug dealer during an armed robbery. Abdur’Rahman received the death penalty for the crime, while his codefendant testified against him in exchange for a sentence of less than death and was paroled after six years in prison.
Abdur’Rahman does not have an execution date, and is not challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty, per se, or even seeking to avoid lethal injection. The question before the Court is simply whether the Tennessee protocol presents an unreasonable potential to deny him his constitutional right to a dignified and humane execution. This case marks the first time that this issue has been presented to the Court on a full evidentiary record, and Abdur’Rahman’s case has no procedural issues that would prevent the Supreme Court from addressing the underlying merits of his claim.
At least thirteen other states are currently facing legal challenges to lethal injection, which in some cases have uncovered new and disturbing information regarding botched executions. On Wednesday, April 26, 2006, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Hill v. McDonough, a Florida case challenging procedures in the state’s lethal injection protocol.
Download the amicus brief (pdf).
Bradley A. MacLean, attorney for Abdur’Rahman, is available to comment on the case and can be reached at (615) 782-2237. Geoffrey F. Aronow, counsel of record on the amicus brief, is also available for comment and can be reached at (202) 912-2110.
