The court's majority said Asay had not shown that the introduction of the drug etomidate into the execution process put him at risk of suffering, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Corrections officials plan to use etomidate as a substitute for a previous drug, midazolam, as the 1st drug in a 3-step process. It would be the 1st time etomidate, a sedative, has been used in an execution.
In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld a ruling by a Duval County circuit judge who held a hearing on the lethal-injection drug issue.
"Based on the testimony heard during the evidentiary hearing and the record before this (Supreme) Court, Asay has not demonstrated that he is at substantial risk of serious harm," the majority opinion said. "Indeed, the record before this court demonstrates that Asay is at a small risk of mild to moderate pain."
The majority opinion by Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and justices Peggy Quince, Ricky Polston and Alan Lawson, also said Asay had not "identified a known and available alternative method of execution that entails a significantly less severe risk of pain."
Justices R. Fred Lewis and Charles Canady concurred with the majority opinion but did not fully sign on to it.
Justice Barbara Pariente dissented on a series of grounds, including that Asay was wrongly denied access to documents about the new lethal-injection process.
Pariente said the Florida Department of Corrections delayed providing information and has not provided some details, such as the reasons for adopting the new process and the identity of the manufacturer of etomidate.
Source: News Service of Florida, August 16, 2017
⚑ | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us:
deathpenaltynews@gmail.com.
Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running! DONATE!
