Arizona Says Inmate Who Died After Nearly Two-Hour Execution Did Not Suffer

A state spokesperson says she was surprised by how “peaceful” the execution appeared.

The 'death chamber' at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Huntsville Unit in Huntsville, Texas, February 29, 2000. 
National Journal
Dustin Volz
See more stories about...
Dustin Volz
July 23, 2014, 3:10 p.m.

Ari­zona on Wed­nes­day ap­peared to botch the ex­e­cu­tion of a death-row in­mate who was pro­nounced dead nearly two hours after the state in­jec­ted a se­cret­ive batch of leth­al drugs in­to his body.

Joseph Wood’s pro­longed death comes on the heels of a flurry of court battles con­cern­ing the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of the state’s re­fus­al to dis­close the iden­tity of the sup­pli­er of its leth­al drugs, and the case echoes a sim­il­arly botched ex­e­cu­tion in Ok­lahoma just months ago.

The at­tor­neys for the con­victed Ari­zona mur­der­er filed an emer­gency ap­peal to halt his ex­e­cu­tion after he re­portedly re­mained alive and con­scious more than an hour after the state began the ex­e­cu­tion.

But the mo­tion was too late, and Wood was pro­nounced dead al­most ex­actly two hours after the state ad­min­istered the first of a two-drug leth­al cock­tail in­to his veins.

Wood has “been gasp­ing and snort­ing for more than an hour,” his at­tor­neys wrote in their emer­gency pe­ti­tion to the Ari­zona fed­er­al court.

When asked if she agreed with re­ports from nu­mer­ous journ­al­ist eye­wit­nesses that Wood was gasp­ing dur­ing his ex­e­cu­tion, Stephanie Grisham, a spokes­wo­man for Ari­zona At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Tom Horne, said “ab­so­lutely not.”

“I haven’t giv­en a state­ment but the claims be­ing made by the me­dia wit­nesses and de­fense at­tor­neys is not ac­cur­ate in my opin­ion,” she told Na­tion­al Journ­al in an email. “He went to sleep, and looked to be snor­ing. This was my first ex­e­cu­tion and I was sur­prised by how peace­ful it was. There was ab­so­lutely no snort­ing or gasp­ing for air.”

Ari­zona Gov. Jan Brew­er an­nounced Wed­nes­day even­ing that she had asked her state’s De­part­ment of Cor­rec­tions to “con­duct a full re­view” of its ex­e­cu­tion pro­cess. While not­ing con­cern for the length of time it took for Wood’s death to be called, Brew­er struck a largely de­fens­ive tone.

“Wood died in a law­ful man­ner and by eye­wit­ness and med­ic­al ac­counts he did not suf­fer,” Brew­er, a Re­pub­lic­an, said in a state­ment. “This is in stark com­par­is­on to the grue­some, vi­cious suf­fer­ing that he in­flic­ted on his two vic­tims—and the life­time of suf­fer­ing he has caused their fam­ily.”

Oth­er state of­fi­cials in the at­tor­ney gen­er­al’s of­fice said they be­lieved Wood had not suffered. Mi­chael Kiefer, an eye­wit­ness re­port­er for The Ari­zona Re­pub­lic, said he coun­ted 660 gasps taken by Wood be­fore he slipped in­to un­con­scious­ness.

“We will re­new our ef­forts to get in­form­a­tion about the man­u­fac­turer of drugs as well as how Ari­zona came up with the ex­per­i­ment­al for­mula of drugs it used today,” Wood’s at­tor­ney, Dale Baich, said in a state­ment. “Ari­zona ap­pears to have joined sev­er­al oth­er states who have been re­spons­ible for an en­tirely pre­vent­able hor­ror—a bungled ex­e­cu­tion. The pub­lic should hold its of­fi­cials re­spons­ible and de­mand to make this pro­cess more trans­par­ent.”

Richard Di­eter, the dir­ect­or of the Death Pen­alty In­form­a­tion Cen­ter, flatly re­jec­ted the sug­ges­tion that Wood did not suf­fer, and cast blame on Ari­zona for not ex­er­cising more cau­tion in its pro­tocol giv­en re­cent prob­lems with leth­al drugs ob­tained from uniden­ti­fied man­u­fac­tur­ers.

“The facts speak for them­selves,” Di­eter said Wed­nes­day night. “I don’t think Ari­zona ever in­ten­ded to put someone on a gurney for two hours squirm­ing and grunt­ing.”

Di­eter ad­ded that Ari­zona had “ample warn­ing” that the drugs used in its ex­e­cu­tion could prove prob­lem­at­ic, es­pe­cially giv­en the re­cent con­tro­versy in Ok­lahoma. The par­tic­u­lar com­bin­a­tion of drugs used Wed­nes­day night have only been used in an ex­e­cu­tion once be­fore in Ohio, where Den­nis McGuire re­portedly con­vulsed and gasped for 25 minutes be­fore be­ing pro­nounced dead.

“This is neg­li­gence, mal­prac­tice, un­pre­pared­ness,” Di­eter said. “Secrecy is a re­cipe for dis­aster; it is a re­cipe for closed-minded­ness.”

Wood’s ex­e­cu­tion had been in leg­al limbo for days, as a num­ber of courts is­sued stays on his ex­e­cu­tion that were either over­turned or later re­can­ted. Wood had at­temp­ted to stave off his death sen­tence by ar­guing that Ari­zona was vi­ol­at­ing his First Amend­ment right to know the iden­tity of the sup­pli­er of the state’s two-drug leth­al in­jec­tion cock­tail.

A fed­er­al Ap­peals Court had ruled in Wood’s fa­vor be­fore the Su­preme Court denied the stay Tues­day.

The de­tails of Wood’s case closely re­semble those of an Ok­lahoma in­mate whose ex­e­cu­tion was botched in April. Clayton Lock­ett was de­clared un­con­scious 10 minutes after be­ing in­jec­ted with the first dose of a new, un­tested three-drug cock­tail, whose sup­pli­er was also shrouded in secrecy. He was pro­nounced dead of heart fail­ure 43 minutes after his ex­e­cu­tion began.

Ari­zona of­fi­cials said they planned to use a com­bin­a­tion of the drugs midazolam and hy­dro­morphone to ex­ecute Wood, but they re­fused to dis­close the iden­tity of the man­u­fac­tur­ers of those drugs or the qual­i­fic­a­tions of those who would ad­min­is­ter them.

Ari­zona and Ok­lahoma rep­res­ent a dwind­ling num­ber of act­ive death-pen­alty states that have been scram­bling in re­cent years to pro­cure the drugs ne­ces­sary to carry out death sen­tences, amid boy­cotts from European man­u­fac­tur­ers and reti­cence from li­censed phys­i­cians. Ok­lahoma’s botched at­tempt forced the state to tem­por­ar­ily halt its ex­e­cu­tions and or­der a re­view of its death-pen­alty pro­ced­ures.

Wood was sen­tenced to death for the 1989 shoot­ing of his girl­friend and her fath­er.

Read the full pe­ti­tion from Wood’s law­yers here:

{{third­PartyEmbed type:scribd id:234913481}}

This story is break­ing and will be up­dated.

What We're Following See More »
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”