You need five Supreme Court justices to halt an execution. In January, Charles Warner got four. Oklahoma executed him that same day.
But the court did something strange eight days later: It agreed to hear Warner's case. For that, you only need four votes. That case, initially docketed as Warner v. Gross, was posthumously renamed Glossip v. Gross, one of the highlights of the last Supreme Court term.
Advertisement
No one knows which of the nine justices voted to hear the Warner case, but it was probably the same ones who would have spared his life a week earlier. Dissenting from the one-sentence order that refused to keep Warner alive a little longer, the four justices said a few things about Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol. They were none too pleased.
"The questions before us are especially important now, given States' increasing reliance on new and scientifically untested methods of execution," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in January.
Those words now ring prophetic.
On Thursday, The Oklahoman revealed that an autopsy report for Warner showed that he had been executed using potassium acetate, a chemical not approved for such use in Oklahoma. The state's drug protocol calls for potassium chloride.
The Warner case marks the first time that any state has administered potassium acetate in an execution, according to the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center. Oklahoma almost used it a second time on Richard Glossip last week, except Gov. Mary Fallin (R) gave him a last-minute stay after state Department of Corrections officials discovered the mix-up involving the wrong drug the day of his execution.
Advertisement
An investigation into the errors -- including Warner's execution -- is underway, and all pending Oklahoma executions are on hold until the mess is resolved. A new investigative report published Friday by The Frontier also raised questions about who's truly the boss in Oklahoma's capital system.
Could the Supreme Court have foreseen this disaster?
In January, Sotomayor and her liberal colleagues on the court sounded the alarm when they said they were "deeply troubled" about the evidence Warner and other death row inmates had presented about midazolam, another problematic substance in Oklahoma's three-drug cocktail. They said the evidence suggested that it "cannot constitutionally be used as the first drug in a three-drug lethal injection protocol."
The justices had doubts about the drug in part because of an earlier botched execution in Oklahoma -- that of Clayton Lockett, which in their words "went poorly, to say the least."
"Lockett awoke and writhed on the execution table for some time after the drugs had been injected and officials confirmed him to be unconscious," Sotomayor continued. "He was overheard to say, 'Something is wrong,' and, 'The drugs aren’t working.'"
Advertisement
Lockett died some 40 minutes after he received the lethal dose. Warner himself said, "My body is on fire" as he was being put to death.
Yet in June, the Supreme Court upheld Oklahoma's drug protocol, ruling it did not violate the Constitution. It was a contentious 5-to-4 decision, with the same four justices who would've given Warner a reprieve losing the battle. Sotomayor wrote the principal dissent denouncing Oklahoma's practices, but it was Justice Stephen Breyer who made headlines when he said it is "highly likely" the death penalty, as practiced in the United States, is now unconstitutional.
The conservative majority was unimpressed. Noting the five-month investigation into Lockett's disastrous execution and the state's new protocol that emerged from it, Justice Samuel Alito observed Oklahoma now had in place "procedural safeguards to help ensure that an inmate remains insensate to any pain." He added that Warner was executed in keeping with "these revised procedures."
We now know that was hardly the case. Worse, the Supreme Court innocently took Oklahoma at its word about the last drug it would use to stop Warner's heart.
"In January of this year, Oklahoma executed Warner using these revised procedures and the combination of midazolam, a paralytic agent, and potassium chloride," Alito said.
Advertisement
As we learned Thursday, that also was not the case.
With all this new information, it's unclear how the court might rule if Oklahoma's troubled lethal-injection scheme reaches it again. But there's something to be said about Sotomayor's warning in January about death penalty states' "increasing reliance on new and scientifically untested methods of execution," which now raise the specter that Warner's execution may, in fact, have violated the Eighth Amendment.
In a statement Thursday, Charles Ogletree, a Harvard law professor and a prominent death penalty opponent, called on the Department of Justice to investigate Oklahoma's use of the unapproved drug and to look into "whether any civil or even criminal liability should attach to the homicide of Charles Warner."
For the lawyers attacking Oklahoma's execution drug protocols, the recent developments seem to have lit a new fire.
Dale Baich, a federal public defender representing Glossip and other death row inmates, told The Huffington Post it's "too early to tell" if a new Supreme Court showdown will result from the new revelations, but he said the fight continues in federal district court.
Advertisement
"We fully expect to go to trial," Baich said.
As for the justices themselves, Glossip continues to be on their minds. During a hearing on Wednesdayin an unrelated capital case from Kansas, Justice Antonin Scalia still didn't seem to be over the June decision, let alone his colleague's newfound opposition to the death penalty.
"Kansans, unlike our Justice Breyer, do not think the death penalty is unconstitutional and indeed very much favor it," Scalia said.
Perhaps. But if the recent failures and botched executions in Oklahoma -- and the death penalty chaoselsewhere -- mean anything, maybe the rest of the country and even a majority of the justices will soon be ready to turn a page.
Until then, there's one thing we may never know: Why there wasn't a fifth vote at the Supreme Court that would have allowed Warner to make his case.
Also on HuffPost:
Lethal Injection
AP
Until 2010, most states used a three-drug combination: an anesthetic (pentobarbital or sodium thiopental), a paralytic agent (pancuronium bromide) to paralyze the muscle system, and a drug to stop the heart (potassium chloride). Recently, European pharmaceutical companies have refused to sell drugs to the U.S. for use in lethal injections, requiring states to find new, untested alternatives.
Gas Chamber
AP
Gas chambers, like this one pictured at the former Missouri State Penitentiary in Jefferson City, Mo., were first used in the U.S. in 1924. In the procedure, an inmate is sealed inside an airtight chamber which is then filled with toxic hydrogen cyanide gas. Oxygen starvation ultimately leads to death, but the inmate does not immediately lose consciousness.
Electric Chair
AP
The first electric chair was used in 1890. Electrodes attached to an inmate's body deliver a current of electricity. Sometimes more than one jolt is required.
Advertisement
Hanging
AP
Hanging was used as the primary method of execution in the U.S. until the electric chair's invention in 1890. Death is typically caused by dislocation of the vertebrae or asphyxiation, but in cases when the rope is too long, the inmate can sometimes be decapitated. If too short, the inmate can take up to 45 minutes to die.
Firing Squad
AP
This Old West-style execution method dates back to the invention of firearms. In a typical scenario in the U.S., the inmate is strapped to a chair. Five anonymous marksmen stand 20 feet away, aim rifles at the convict's heart, and shoot. One rifle is loaded with blanks.
Beheading
Wikimedia Commons
Decapitation has been used in capital punishment for thousands of years. Above is the chopping block used for beheadings at the Tower of London.
A punishment for men convicted of high treason, "hanging, drawing and quartering" was used in England between the 13th and 19th centuries. Men were dragged behind a horse, then hanged, disemboweled, beheaded, and chopped or torn into four pieces.
Slow Slicing
Carter Cutlery/Wikimedia Commons
Also called "death by a thousand cuts," this execution method was used in China from roughly A.D. 900 until it was banned in 1905. The slicing took place for up to three days. It was used as punishment for treason and killing one's parents.
Advertisement
Boiling Alive
Wikimedia Commons
Death by boiling goes back to the first century A.D., and was legal in the 16th century in England as punishment for treason. This method of execution involved placing the person into a large cauldron containing a boiling liquid such as oil or water.
Crucifixion
Wikimedia Commons
Crucifixion goes back to around the 6th century B.C.used today in Sudan. For this method of execution, a person is tied or nailed to a cross and left to hang. Death is slow and painful, ranging from hours to days.
Burning Alive
Pat Canova via Getty Images
Records show societies burning criminals alive as far back as the 18 century B.C. under Hammurabi's Code of Laws in Babylonia. It has been used as punishment for sexual deviancy, witchcraft, treason and heresy.
Advertisement
Live Burial
Antoine Wiertz/Wikimedia Commons
Execution by burial goes back to 260 B.C. in ancient China, when 400,000 were reportedly buried alive by the Qin dynasty. Depending on the size of the coffin (assuming there is one), it can take anywhere from 10 minutes to several hours for a person to run out of oxygen.
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.