Home

Find Transcripts
Search Transcripts
Browse by Case Name
Browse by Expert Name
Browse by Expert Type
Product Pricing
Legal Topics
FAQ

Demo

REGISTER!

About Us
HELP!
Links
Privacy Policy

 


By clicking the "BUY NOW" button, you agree to our Transcript License Agreement
Cost: $657.00
Case: State of Ohio vs. Ruben Rivera and Ronald McCloud, Case No. 04CR065940 and 05CR068067
Testimony Date: April 07, 2008
Expert Witness: Mark Heath M.D.
Expert Type: Anesthesiology
Court: State: Ohio County: Lorain
Pages: 219

	                                                                109

 1  The State of Ohio,   ) 

 2  County of Lorain    ) SS:  

 3  

 4               IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

 5  THE STATE OF OHIO,         )
                 Plaintiff;    )
 6       vs                   )  No 04CR065940
    RUBEN O RIVERA,           ) 
 7               Defendant    )
    
 8  THE STATE OF OHIO,         )
                 Plaintiff;    )
 9       vs                   )  No 05CR068067
                               )
10  RONALD McCLOUD,            )     
                 Defendant    )
11
                              ***
12
             COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
13
              MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008 - VOLUME II
14
                              ***
15
      BE IT REMEMBERED, that on Monday, the 7th day of
16
    April, 2008, being one of the regular days of the April
17
    term of said court, before the Honorable James M Burge,
18
    the Presiding Judge of said court, the above-captioned
19
    causes came on for hearing upon Defendants' Motion to 
20
    Declare the Lethal Injection Protocol Unconstitutional  
21
                               ***
22

23

24

25


                                                               110

 1        AFTERNOON SESSION, MONDAY, APRIL 7, 2008

 2           THE COURT:  All right  We left off in this 

 3  morning's proceedings with -- still in Dr Heath's direct 

 4  testimony 

 5           I think that we were able to narrow the factual 

 6  issues, at least from Dr Heath's testimony  His 

 7  testimony, if I understand it correctly, would be that the 

 8  administration of potassium chloride without anesthetic 

 9  would be very painful; that the administration of 

10  pancuronium bromide, while not necessarily painful, would 

11  at least be anguish-filled, since the condemned couldn't 

12  breathe; and that the crux of the issue lies with the 

13  administration of thiopental, which is the anesthetic 

14  drug

15           I think that the doctor has made it clear that if 

16  a sufficient amount of thiopental is administered 

17  appropriately, it will cause the death of the accused 

18  painlessly 

19           My understanding of the doctor's reservations 

20  about Ohio's protocol can be summed up in the nature of 

21  the practice, that is, there isn't a bedside practitioner 

22  to determine whether the injection ports have been 

23  properly placed to exclude leakage; the length of the 

24  intravenous tubes used -- my impression from the testimony 

25  was that the longer the tube, the greater the likelihood 


                                                               111

 1  there is of a problem in administering the thiopental -- 

 2  and, as well, with the mixing of the drugs, and the 

 3  medical acumen required to determine whether they're still 

 4  active or not active; in sum and substance, the difficulty 

 5  being with quality assurance with regard to the 

 6  administration of the thiopental, whether some of it has 

 7  leaked out, whether the drugs are still efficacious, 

 8  whether the injection port is clean and on target  So I 

 9  think we're talking about a narrow issue here

10           Can you think of things, Doctor, that I have left 

11  out of my summary that are important?

12           THE WITNESS:  I think that's a very good summary 

13  of the four phases of the procedure  Three of them are 

14  the administration of each of the drugs, but there are 

15  also significant issues with respect to establishing IV 

16  access, in that we know, both in the clinical setting and 

17  in execution settings, that execution personnel have 

18  elected to or been forced to put in a central line, or a 

19  cut-down, or some alternative means of access  And that's 

20  a very specialized procedure, which carries very 

21  significant risks of causing injury, and also pain and 

22  death  

23           And there are a lot of -- so there are a number 

24  of issues that attach to that practice  And to -- it 

25  being very unclear what Ohio's so-called backup plan would 


                                                               112

 1  be if -- or, inevitably, when it encounters that 

 2  situation, as other states have, and will continue to, 

 3  just like in clinical practice, it's inevitable that you 

 4  can't sometimes get a peripheral IV in, and then they have 

 5  to resort to something else, or cancel the execution, I 

 6  suppose, or use a different method, I suppose  But unless 

 7  they have a backup plan, that's a standard in lethal 

 8  injection, and it's an articulated backup plan, and the 

 9  specifics of the experience and proficiency and 

10  credentials of the 
	 

 


      Copyright 2004 - 2010 CrossExam LLC
      All rights reserved.
dmca

 

 

Feedback Form