DOCSLIB.ORG

IN the SUPREME COURT of TENNESSEE at NASHVILLE ABU-ALI ABDUR'rahman, Et Al, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) No. M2018-01385-SC-RD

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IN the SUPREME COURT of TENNESSEE at NASHVILLE ABU-ALI ABDUR'rahman, Et Al, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) No. M2018-01385-SC-RD Electronically RECEIVED on September 0G, 201A Electronically FILED on September 0G, 2018 Appellate Court Clerk Appellate Court Clerk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ABU-ALI ABDUR’RAHMAN, et al, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) No. M2018-01385-SC-RDO-CV ) v. ) Davidson County Chancery Court ) Case No. 18-183-III TONY PARKER, et al, ) ) Defendants-Appellees ) ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGEMNT OF THE CHANCERY COURT BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS KELLEY J. HENRY, BPR# 21113 Supervisory Asst. Federal Public Defender KATHLEEN MORRIS AMY D. HARWELL, BPR#18691 42 Rutledge Street Asst. Chief, Capital Habeas Unit Nashville, TN 37210 JEROME C DELPINO, BPR# 025911 Phone: (615) 242-3200 Asst. Federal Public Defender Fax: (615)-242-3206 RICHARD TENNENT,BPR# 16931 Attorney for Plaintiff Hall Asst. Federal Public Defender KATHERINE DIX, BPR#022778 BRADLEY MACLEAN Asst. Federal Public Defender ATTORNEY AT LAW Office of the Federal Public Defender 1702 Villa Place for the Middle District of Tennessee Nashville, TN 3212 810 Broadway, Suite 200 Phone: (615) 943-8716 Nashville, TN 37203 Attorney for Abdur’Rahm Phone: (615) 736-5047 Fax: (615) 736-5265 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Abdur’Rahman, Bane, Black, Bland, Burns, Carruthers, Chalmers, Dellinger, Duncan, Henderson, Hines, Hodges, Hugueley, Jahi, Ivy, Johnson, Jordan, Keen, Middlebrooks, Miller, Morris, Payne, Powers, Rogers, Sample, Smith, Wright, Zagorski TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................. 9 STATEMENT OF ISSUES .......................................................................................... 10 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................................... 13 STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................................... 38 I. Standard of review regarding constitutional claim ......................................... 38 II. Constitutional principles governing the distinction between and a facial versus an as-applied challenge ......................................................................... 39 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................... 43 I. The Science: The testimony of four expert witnesses, representing four different scientific perspectives.. ...................................................................... 43 a. Dr. Stephens, PhD, neuropharmacologist. ................................................. 43 1. Dr. Stevens provided an abbreviated version of a year-long, graduate- level course on Central Nervous System Pharmacology; he explained the crucial concept “mechanism of action.” ........................................... 44 A. The central nervous system is made up of, approximately, 86 billion neurons, that each have, roughly, 10,000 connections to other neurons—it is these connections that produce the essential nature of neurons; at each connection neurons ‘speak’ with a very simple language of excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters........................................................................ 44 B. Three basic mechanisms of action: (1) independent effect on the brain; (2) enhancement of other chemicals in the brain; (3) blocking of other chemicals in the brain. .................................... 45 i C. The basic terminology of sedation: “the plane of general anesthesia” is crucial, only at this level is a human rendered insensate to pain. ......................................................................... 46 D. Diagramming basic neuropharmacological principles. .................... 47 2. The single, limited mechanism of action of Midazolam, compared with the multiple mechanisms of more potent pharmaceuticals .................. 49 A. The GABA receptor ...................................................................... 50 B. Midazolam has a single mechanism of action, while Pentobarbital has three mechanisms; due to this scientific reality Midazolam is not capable of causing the same effects as Pentobarbital. .............................................................................. 51 i. Different mechanisms of action, different uses. .................... 54 ii. Anesthetic gases have five-mechanisms of action; like barbiturates, they both increase inhibition and block excitation; this makes them yet more potent, and again illustrates the limitations of Midazolam. .............................. 55 C. Because of Midazolam’s single limited mechanism of action it has a ceiling effect, and it can never--regardless of dose--render a human insensate to pain, or unarousable by noxious stimuli; it can never bring a human to a plane of general anesthesia. ...... 57 i. The ceiling effect is not some magical property of Midazolam: other medications such as aspirin have ceiling effects. ......... 58 ii.There are two attributes to a ceiling effect: (1) maximum potency and (2) the dose at which maximum potency is reached. ...... 58 iii. The scientific proof of Midazolam’s ceiling: (1) mechanism of action, (2) real world experience and (3) peer reviewed scientific studies. ..................................................................... 59 ii iv.Larger doses do not change the mechanism of action; a 500 mg dose of Midazolam cannot break through the ceiling. ........... 60 3. The painful pharmacological effects of the three-drugs in Tennessee’s protocol: inmates will suffer severe pain and terror. ............................ 61 A. Midazolam is a strong acid, pH 3.0; 100 ml of acid is an immense quantity of acid to inject into a human being. ............................ 61 B. Vecuronium bromide is a paralytic, which will first paralyze the small muscles of the face, preventing obvious reaction, then the limbs, and finally the lungs, causing suffocation. ...................... 62 C. Potassium chloride is a depolarizing chemical that activates every pain-sensing neuron in the body; it will stop the human heart, causing death. ................................................................................. 63 4. Dr. Stevens’ final conclusions about the neuropharmacological impact of the three-drug protocol: it will cause severe pain and mental anguish; a two-drug protocol that did not include vecuronium would be less painful and cause less suffering; a one-drug protocol using Pentobarbital, if done properly, would not involve pain at all ............. 64 b. The Testimony of David J. Greenblatt, M.D., Louis Lasagna Endowed Professor of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics at Tufts University School of Medicine and special and scientific research staff at Tufts Medical Center ................................................................................... 65 iii 1. Dr. Greenblatt has an excellent record as an academic and medical scientific researcher that spans more than 40 years, focusing on benzodiazepine drugs ............................................................................. 66 2. Dr. Greenblatt participated in the earliest research on Midazolam in the United States which became part of its review and approval for use by the F.D.A. ........................................................................................... 68 3. Dr. Greenblatt testified in agreement with Dr. Stevens on the pharmacology of Midazolam .................................................................. 68 4. Dr. Greenblatt was unequivocal in his opinion that Midazolam is incapable of inducing a level of anesthesia where a person would be insensate to the torturous effects of vecuronium bromide and potassium chloride as used in the Tennessee lethal injection protocol .................................................................................................... 69 A. Midazolam’s effects are based on a physical function in brain cells that is innately limited, which limits the effect of the drug .............................................................................................. 69 B. Midazolam is not used alone to induce general anesthesia; where it is used alone as a sedative it is because it allows a patient to be roused during a procedure ..................................... 71 C. There is a “ceiling effect” – a limit on the sedative effect – for Midazolam that has been demonstrated in scientific research . 72 D. Dr. Greenblatt studied patients who ingested massive overdoses of benzodiazepines and found that they were in a sedated state where they were still capable of being roused and responded to noxious stimuli ............................................................................. 76 E. Dr. Greenblatt testified that the injection of Midazolam in the Tennessee lethal injection protocol will not protect a person being executed from experiencing the torturous effects of the second and third chemical sin the protocol ................................ 79 5. Dr. Greenblatt testified that the pharmacokinetics of Midazolam create a time delay in the onset of its effects that make it certain that it will not have induced its peak sedative effect by the time vecuronium bromide and potassium chloride are injected into an inmate under the Protocol ................................................................................................... 81 iv 6. Because of the pH of Midazolam solution, the amount called for by the protocol would
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Amended Brief of Appellants' to Include Table of Authorities
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................. 9 STATEMENT OF ISSUES .......................................................................................... 10 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................................... 13 STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................................... 38 I. Standard of review regarding constitutional claim ......................................... 38 II. Constitutional principles governing the distinction between and a facial versus an as-applied challenge ......................................................................... 39 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................... 43 I. The Science: The testimony of four expert witnesses, representing four different scientific perspectives.. ...................................................................... 43 a. Dr. Stephens, PhD, neuropharmacologist. ................................................. 43 1. Dr. Stevens provided an abbreviated version of a year-long, graduate- level course on Central Nervous System Pharmacology; he explained the crucial concept “mechanism of action.” ........................................... 44 A. The central nervous system is made up of, approximately,
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States ______RICHARD E
    No. 14-7955 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________ RICHARD E. GLOSSIP, ET AL., Petitioners, v. KEVIN J. GROSS, ET AL., Respondents. ___________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ___________ JOINT APPENDIX – VOLUME I ___________ JON M. SANDS PATRICK R. WYRICK * FED. PUBLIC DEFENDER OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL DALE A. BAICH 313 N.E. 21st Street ROBIN C. KONRAD * Oklahoma City, OK 73105 850 West Adams Street (405) 522-3921 Suite 201 [email protected] PHOENIX, AZ 85007 (602) 382-2816 [email protected] SUSAN OTTO FED. PUBLIC DEFENDER W. DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA PATTI PALMER GHEZZI RANDY A. BAUMAN 215 Dean A. McGee Avenue Suite 707 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 (405) 609-5975 Additional counsel on inside front cover Counsel for Petitioners Counsel for Respondents March 9, 2015 * Counsel of Record PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED: JAN. 13, 2015 CERTIORARI GRANTED: JAN. 23, 2015 MARK E. HADDAD ALYCIA A. DEGEN AMANDA V. LOPEZ COLLIN P. WEDEL SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 (213) 896-6000 PETER D. KEISLER JEFFREY T. GREEN JACQUELINE G. COOPER SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 736-8000 Counsel for Petitioners TABLE OF CONTENTS Page United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, No. 5:14-cv-665, Rele- vant Docket Entries ........................................... 1 United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, No. 14-6244, Relevant Docket Entries 22 Motion in Limine, Warner v.
    [Show full text]
  • This Is a Capital Case Execution Set for October 11, 2018 at 7 Pm
    THIS IS A CAPITAL CASE EXECUTION SET FOR OCTOBER 11, 2018 AT 7 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 18-_______ ——————— EDMUND ZAGORSKI, Petitioner, v. TONY PARKER, et al., Respondent. ——————— ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT ——————— PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ——————— KELLEY J. HENRY* Supervisory Asst. Federal Public Defender AMY D. HARWELL Asst. Chief, Capital Habeas Unit RICHARD TENNENT KATHERINE DIX JAY O. MARTIN Asst. Federal Public Defenders 810 Broadway, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 736-5047 Fax: (615) 736-5265 *Counsel of Record October 9, 2018 QUESTIONS PRESENTED “It is uncontested that, failing a proper dose of sodium thiopental that would render the prisoner unconscious, there is a substantial, constitutionally unacceptable risk of suffocation from the administration of pancuronium bromide and pain from the injection of potassium chloride." Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 53 (2008) (emphasis added). The Questions Presented are: 1. Where the credited, credible, and unassailable evidence at trial proves with certainty that a lethal injection protocol will inflict severe pain and mental anguish on an inmate by causing the inmate to feel and experience pulmonary edema (drowning in one’s own fluids) from midazolam, suffocation and paralysis (described as being buried alive) from vecuronium bromide, and chemical burning (the severity of which has been described as being burned alive from the inside) from potassium chloride, does that protocol violate the Eighth Amendment regardless of whether the inmate has demonstrated a feasible readily implemented alternative? 2. Did Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. __, 135 S.Ct.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row Inmates
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ABU-ALI ABDUR’RAHMAN, et al, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) No. M2018-01385-SC-RDO-CV ) v. ) Davidson County Chancery Court ) Case No. 18-183-III TONY PARKER, et al, ) ) Defendants-Appellees ) ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGEMNT OF THE CHANCERY COURT BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS KELLEY J. HENRY, BPR# 21113 Supervisory Asst. Federal Public Defender KATHLEEN MORRIS AMY D. HARWELL, BPR#18691 42 Rutledge Street Asst. Chief, Capital Habeas Unit Nashville, TN 37210 JEROME C DELPINO, BPR# 025911 Phone: (615) 242-3200 Asst. Federal Public Defender Fax: (615)-242-3206 RICHARD TENNENT,BPR# 16931 Attorney for Plaintiff Hall Asst. Federal Public Defender KATHERINE DIX, BPR#022778 BRADLEY MACLEAN Asst. Federal Public Defender ATTORNEY AT LAW Office of the Federal Public Defender 1702 Villa Place for the Middle District of Tennessee Nashville, TN 3212 810 Broadway, Suite 200 Phone: (615) 943-8716 Nashville, TN 37203 Attorney for Abdur’Rahm Phone: (615) 736-5047 Fax: (615) 736-5265 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Abdur’Rahman, Bane, Black, Bland, Burns, Carruthers, Chalmers, Dellinger, Duncan, Henderson, Hines, Hodges, Hugueley, Jahi, Ivy, Johnson, Jordan, Keen, Middlebrooks, Miller, Morris, Payne, Powers, Rogers, Sample, Smith, Wright, Zagorski Document receivedbytheTNSupremeCourt. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]