Lethal Injection on Trial

(2 of 4)

Morales is no stranger to cruel and unusual punishment. In 1981 he tried at first to strangle Terri Winchell, 17, and failing that, beat her with a hammer and raped and stabbed her. In challenging his Feb. 21 execution date, however, Morales was not arguing his guilt, only his right to avoid a painful death.

His argument may be morally suspect, but it got a boost of scientific legitimacy in April 2005, when the British medical journal Lancet reported that on the basis of the toxicology reports of executed inmates from six U.S. states, 43% of prisoners may have still been conscious after their dose of sedatives. That means the inmates would have slowly suffocated from the paralytic or suffered intense pain as the potassium chloride worked its way through their veins. Critics of the article fault the study's methodology, but the article has become a favorite defense exhibit in increasingly successful challenges to lethal injection.

In response to Morales' appeal, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel gave the state two options: either have licensed personnel inject Morales directly with a lethal wallop of barbiturate, or perform the standard three-drug cocktail with two anesthesiologists present to ensure that the procedure is as painless as possible.

Two doctors initially agreed to monitor Morales' pain. But when newspapers reported that doctors were part of Fogel's newly mandated protocol, the California Medical Association was deluged by calls and e-mails from doctors who objected to fellow healers playing an active role in the execution. Either because of professional pressure or personal qualms, the two anesthesiologists bowed out. California was unable to find timely replacements, and Fogel postponed the execution until at least May, when he has scheduled another hearing to decide on a protocol, including an appropriate role for doctors.