Term: 2018
Docket: 17-8151
Bucklew v. Precythe
- Pro
17-8151 BUCKLEW V. PRECYTHE DECISION BELOW: 883 F.3d 1087 IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED IN THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER PETITIONER MET HIS BURDEN UNDER GLOSSIP v. GROSS, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), TO PROVE WHAT PROCEDURES WOULD BE USED TO ADMINISTER HIS PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF EXECUTION, THE SEVERITY AND DURATION OF PAIN LIKELY TO BE PRODUCED, AND HOW THEY COMPARE TO THE STATE’S METHOD OF EXECUTION. CHERYL A. PILATE, ESQ., OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, IS APPOINTED TO SERVE AS COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER IN THIS CASE. CERT. GRANTED 4/30/2018 QUESTION PRESENTED: Should a court evaluating an as-applied challenge to a state's method of execution based on an inmate's rare and severe medical condition assume that medical personnel are competent to manage his condition and that the procedure will go as intended? Must evidence comparing a state's proposed method of execution with an alternative proposed by an inmate be offered via a single witness, or should a court at summary judgment look to the record as a whole to determine whether a factfinder could conclude that the two methods significantly differ in the risks they pose to the inmate? Does the Eighth Amendment require an inmate to prove an adequate alternative method of execution when raising an as-applied challenge to the state's proposed method of execution based on his rare and severe medical condition? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 17-3052
The U.S. Supreme Court case Bucklew v. Precythe, 2018, revolved around Russell Bucklew's challenge to his execution method due to a rare medical condition that he argued could cause him severe pain and suffering in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Missouri Department of Corrections planned to execute him by lethal injection using a single drug, pentobarbital. However, Bucklew claimed this would cause rupturing blood-filled tumors in his throat resulting from cavernous hemangioma - an assertion backed up by expert testimony. He proposed nitrogen hypoxia as an alternative method which was not used or authorized under state law at the time. In a 5-4 decision led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court ruled against Bucklew stating that he failed to demonstrate that his suggested alternative would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain or meet legal standards for alternatives methods set out in previous cases like Glossip v Gross (2015). Furthermore, they stated there were legitimate reasons why Missouri hadn't adopted nitrogen hypoxia including its untested nature and potential difficulties with implementation.
In the dissenting opinion for Bucklew v. Precythe, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous court rulings on cruel and unusual punishment. They contended that it is unconstitutional to execute a prisoner in a manner causing severe pain when there are feasible alternatives available. The dissenters criticized the majority for requiring an inmate to prove an alternative method of execution while simultaneously limiting his ability to gather necessary evidence due to state secrecy laws about execution protocols. Furthermore, they disagreed with placing time constraints on death row inmates seeking legal recourse against potentially torturous executions methods which could lead them rushing through complex litigation processes or giving up their claims altogether. Lastly, they expressed concern over potential arbitrariness in capital sentencing decisions across different states and called for reconsideration of constitutionality of death penalty itself.
