Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 6, 2006 18:21:49 GMT -5
Doctor at execution balked----Anesthesiologist's refusal to actively
participate caused halt to Morales procedure.
California's scheduled execution of Michael Angelo Morales, officially
called off at 2:45 a.m. Feb. 21, actually aborted more than 6 hours
earlier, when an anesthesiologist was told of his court-ordered duties for
the 1st time and responded, "I can't participate. I can't proceed."
5 days earlier, the state had filed a document in federal court stating
that the backup anesthesiologist, now identified only as "A2," would
"monitor (Morales) and provide the verification" that he was unconscious
during the execution.
A U.S. District Court judge and then the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
accepted that assurance and permitted the execution preparations to move
forward. But nobody had told A2, who was recruited with an understanding
that he'd do nothing but serve as a "warm body."
The scenario unfolded Tuesday in a lengthy statement of the facts, filed
jointly by the state attorney general's office and Morales' lawyers in
preparation for a full-blown judicial review of California's lethal
injection procedure.
Set to open Sept. 26 in federal court in San Jose before U.S. District
Judge Jeremy Fogel, the hearing will revolve around whether the procedure
presents an unacceptable risk of inflicting extreme pain in violation of
the Eighth Amendment.
The focus will be on the qualifications of execution team members and the
conditions under which they work.
In newly filed prehearing statements, Morales' lawyers contend executions
are carried out under "unacceptable conditions" by prison staff "with
criminal records of misconduct," who lack training in administering
intravenous drugs and other essential personal and professional skills.
The Morales lawyers also say a former execution team leader was removed
from that job and suspended from work for several months for misconduct
unrelated to the carrying out of executions.
The contentions of criminal backgrounds and misconduct appear in a list of
statements to which the state has objected, in most cases because of the
"form of the statement" rather than the content.
The events that led to the postponement of the Morales execution last
winter are described in a separate account of the facts to which both
sides have agreed.
It reports that the backup anesthesiologist was first confronted with his
duties at an execution rehearsal on Feb. 18. Stationed in an anteroom off
the death chamber, he learned he was expected to signal when Morales was
unconscious.
He refused to rehearse his assigned part and then obtained the warden's
permission to stand farther away from the death chamber, in the room where
drugs are mixed. He could merely "show up . and stand in that little
room," seeing nothing.
He didn't learn of the 9th Circuit order until he arrived at the prison
Feb. 20 for the execution that had been scheduled for Feb. 21, a minute
after midnight.
The 9th Circuit's Feb. 19 order permitting the execution to proceed
accepted assurances by the state that two anesthesiologists would monitor
Morales to make sure he was unconscious before the administration of
potentially painful lethal drugs.
When A2 announced that he would not proceed, "Dr. (Robert) Singler
concurred," according to the undisputed statement of facts. The reference
apparently identifies for the first time the primary anesthesiologist
assigned to the Morales execution, but does not make clear whether Singler
also backed out or merely concurred with A2's decision to do so.
The Morales team hopes to put both doctors on the stand during the
upcoming 4-day hearing, but the attorney general has objected.
The undisputed facts include behind-the-scenes information about lethal
injection executions that have occurred in California, particularly that
of Stanley "Tookie" Williams.
One doctor at the Williams execution complained that he had been bumped by
"some big fellow from Sacramento" in the cramped, darkened anteroom from
which the execution team first sedates the inmate and then administers
drugs to paralyze and, finally, to kill him. The drugs are administered
through a long catheter that passes through the wall and into the death
chamber.
The big Sacramentan would "block the light . that helped to allow me to
see what I'm doing," said Dr. Jack St. Clair, a prison physician who's
scheduled to testify at the lethal injection hearing later this month.
According to Morales' lawyers, but disputed by the attorney general, "a
large man" also stood in the way of a licensed vocational nurse whose job
at Williams' execution was to select the right sequence of drugs from a
cart.
Also asserted by the Morales' team but disputed by the state: The nurse
responsible for setting one catheter in Williams blew the vein on the 1st
2 tries. After she failed a 3rd time, the warden gave the order:
"Proceed."
(source: The Sacramento Bee)
participate caused halt to Morales procedure.
California's scheduled execution of Michael Angelo Morales, officially
called off at 2:45 a.m. Feb. 21, actually aborted more than 6 hours
earlier, when an anesthesiologist was told of his court-ordered duties for
the 1st time and responded, "I can't participate. I can't proceed."
5 days earlier, the state had filed a document in federal court stating
that the backup anesthesiologist, now identified only as "A2," would
"monitor (Morales) and provide the verification" that he was unconscious
during the execution.
A U.S. District Court judge and then the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
accepted that assurance and permitted the execution preparations to move
forward. But nobody had told A2, who was recruited with an understanding
that he'd do nothing but serve as a "warm body."
The scenario unfolded Tuesday in a lengthy statement of the facts, filed
jointly by the state attorney general's office and Morales' lawyers in
preparation for a full-blown judicial review of California's lethal
injection procedure.
Set to open Sept. 26 in federal court in San Jose before U.S. District
Judge Jeremy Fogel, the hearing will revolve around whether the procedure
presents an unacceptable risk of inflicting extreme pain in violation of
the Eighth Amendment.
The focus will be on the qualifications of execution team members and the
conditions under which they work.
In newly filed prehearing statements, Morales' lawyers contend executions
are carried out under "unacceptable conditions" by prison staff "with
criminal records of misconduct," who lack training in administering
intravenous drugs and other essential personal and professional skills.
The Morales lawyers also say a former execution team leader was removed
from that job and suspended from work for several months for misconduct
unrelated to the carrying out of executions.
The contentions of criminal backgrounds and misconduct appear in a list of
statements to which the state has objected, in most cases because of the
"form of the statement" rather than the content.
The events that led to the postponement of the Morales execution last
winter are described in a separate account of the facts to which both
sides have agreed.
It reports that the backup anesthesiologist was first confronted with his
duties at an execution rehearsal on Feb. 18. Stationed in an anteroom off
the death chamber, he learned he was expected to signal when Morales was
unconscious.
He refused to rehearse his assigned part and then obtained the warden's
permission to stand farther away from the death chamber, in the room where
drugs are mixed. He could merely "show up . and stand in that little
room," seeing nothing.
He didn't learn of the 9th Circuit order until he arrived at the prison
Feb. 20 for the execution that had been scheduled for Feb. 21, a minute
after midnight.
The 9th Circuit's Feb. 19 order permitting the execution to proceed
accepted assurances by the state that two anesthesiologists would monitor
Morales to make sure he was unconscious before the administration of
potentially painful lethal drugs.
When A2 announced that he would not proceed, "Dr. (Robert) Singler
concurred," according to the undisputed statement of facts. The reference
apparently identifies for the first time the primary anesthesiologist
assigned to the Morales execution, but does not make clear whether Singler
also backed out or merely concurred with A2's decision to do so.
The Morales team hopes to put both doctors on the stand during the
upcoming 4-day hearing, but the attorney general has objected.
The undisputed facts include behind-the-scenes information about lethal
injection executions that have occurred in California, particularly that
of Stanley "Tookie" Williams.
One doctor at the Williams execution complained that he had been bumped by
"some big fellow from Sacramento" in the cramped, darkened anteroom from
which the execution team first sedates the inmate and then administers
drugs to paralyze and, finally, to kill him. The drugs are administered
through a long catheter that passes through the wall and into the death
chamber.
The big Sacramentan would "block the light . that helped to allow me to
see what I'm doing," said Dr. Jack St. Clair, a prison physician who's
scheduled to testify at the lethal injection hearing later this month.
According to Morales' lawyers, but disputed by the attorney general, "a
large man" also stood in the way of a licensed vocational nurse whose job
at Williams' execution was to select the right sequence of drugs from a
cart.
Also asserted by the Morales' team but disputed by the state: The nurse
responsible for setting one catheter in Williams blew the vein on the 1st
2 tries. After she failed a 3rd time, the warden gave the order:
"Proceed."
(source: The Sacramento Bee)