Glossip v. Gross Page 3

Glossip v. Gross general information

Media for Glossip v. Gross

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 29, 2015 (Part 2) in Glossip v. Gross
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 29, 2015 (Part 3) in Glossip v. Gross
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 29, 2015 (Part 4) in Glossip v. Gross
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - April 29, 2015 in Glossip v. Gross

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 29, 2015 (Part 1) in Glossip v. Gross

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.:

The investigation concluded that the problem resulted from the failure to establish a proper IV line.

The State then adopted new procedures to prevent a repetition of this problem and to make sure that a prisoner is fully unconscious before the second and third drugs are administered.

The State has conducted an execution since that time without the occurrence of anything similar.

The same is true of executions using this three drug protocol in another state.

Petitioners and the principal dissent couched their attack on Midazolam in inflammatory terms claiming that it is tantamount to burning a prisoner at the stake, but the evidence simply does not support this rhetoric.

For these two independent reasons petitioner's Eighth Amendment claim must be rejected.

Justice Scalia has filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Thomas joins.

Justice Thomas has filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Scalia joins.

Justice Breyer has filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg joins, Justice Sotomayor has filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan join.