Bucklew v. Precythe (17-8151)

argument 17-8151

Bucklew v. Precythe

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the core dispute over Mr. Bucklew’s medical condition and its impact on the execution?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case seventeen eighty one fifty one, Bucklu versus Precy. Mr. Hawkman.

Stephen R. Hawkland 0:07

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. Missouri intends to carry out Mr Bucklu's lethal injection execution without informing medical members of the execution team. of the well documented and extremely uncommon medical condition that will very likely cause his execution. to involve severe harm and suffering from the time they begin to gain Venus access all the way through his eventual death.

Elena Kagan 0:33

Mr Hotchman, can you tell me the current condition of your client in light of footnote two of your opening brief? And in particular, but not exclusively. Um does he still have a trach in his throat? And if he does, doesn't that moot out certain of your claims, particularly Um I thought much of the prep work and dangers related to him choking on his own blood. Doesn't the trake minimise that now.

Stephen R. Hawkland 1:07

Yeah, so first to answer your question, as you know, we've we've requested leave to lodge the medical records from the summer. I'm happy to answer it's obviously outside the record. Just want to make that clear. Right now, as far as I know, he still has a trach in. There is no indication about how long he's going to continue to have the trait. The trait could be removed at any time that the medical people determine it's appropriate to do so. I don't think it can moot out the case because without if if the trach is removed, all of the problems returned. As for what would happen if the trach wasn't removed, I think there would still be complications that would need to be investigated. It's a completely different set of circumstances.

Stephen R. Hawkland 1:50

It is certainly true that

Elena Kagan 1:51

we may be issuing a decision on uh an advisory decision because if the trach stays it's a totally different case than if it

Stephen R. Hawkland 2:02

is removed. I don't think it's an advisory decision, Your Honor. I think Um I think the problem is you have a judgment right now that says Missouri can go ahead and execute Mr. Bucklew according to the protocol that they have in place. And we don't at this point, we cannot say he certainly is in imminent danger if that protocol is used at a at the ex there is no pending execution date. If that protocol is used in the future I don't know whether the bleeding problems complicate the trach for him. That's just never been investigated. And I also don't know if the trach's even going to be there. And if the trake isn't going to be there, how long has he had

Elena Kagan 2:37

it now?

Stephen R. Hawkland 2:39

Uh it was put in in June. Part of the reason he made

Elena Kagan 2:42

Isn't it your job to find out?

Stephen R. Hawkland 2:47

Well it it certainly can be removed. The question is uh he's got a progressive condition. That's you know discussed in the record. I

Elena Kagan 2:54

think I'm a little bit Um upset that you would come in and lodge medical records without having secured the information of whether he's physically capable of having the trach removed or not.

Stephen R. Hawkland 3:06

So uh th this is what we know about why I don't know whether this is the precise reason, but he is scheduled to have dental surgery. for a uh uh for a tooth issue. Um that you know, because his mouth is so prone to infection. So he's going to have dental surgery. My suspicion is that they're leaving the trach in for the surgery. They don't want to take the trach out of

Elena Kagan 3:30

surgery. But go ahead. Um Assuming Nothing because I don't know what's going to happen. Um it appears that your doctor Zevet. was misreading the horse study. that his four minute estimate um had to do with a different study having to do with a dog. and a different agent, not the agent at issue here. Given that without that study There's no basis to believe that this the Penbal Patrol would take four minutes to um uh to take effect. It would likely be I think it was the figures were at maximum fifty two and the average is twenty to thirty seconds. That's the only evidence in the record. Is there anything left to your case once that information is eliminated, that factual misstatement?

Stephen R. Hawkland 4:29

Yes, there is, Your Honor. Two things to say about that. First, um in fact, the maximum period of time in that study, if you if you actually time it from the beginning of the infusion all the way through the time that the EEG reads zero is 161 seconds, almost three minutes.