Summary
The Supreme Court denied a stay of execution and certiorari in this death penalty case, where the inmate chose electrocution over Tennessee's lethal injection protocol. Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing the choice was not truly voluntary given credible evidence that lethal injection may be even more painful, and criticizing the requirement that inmates prove an available alternative method under *Glossip v. Gross*. The case addresses Eighth Amendment challenges to execution methods, the voluntariness of electing electrocution, and the burden of proof for alternative means of execution.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Miller's choice of electrocution over lethal injection was voluntary.
- Whether electrocution as a method of execution constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Key quotations
“electrocution will unquestionably inflict intolerable pain unnecessary to cause death in enough executions so as to present a substantial risk that any prisoner will suffer unnecessary and wanton pain” (1 (footnote))
Factual background
David Miller is a death row inmate in Tennessee scheduled to be executed by electrocution. He chose electrocution to avoid the State's current lethal injection protocol, which he believed would cause even more pain. Miller's choice was made against the backdrop of credible scientific evidence that lethal injection as practiced in Tennessee may be worse than electrocution.
Procedural history
Miller applied for a stay of execution and petitioned for certiorari after the Sixth Circuit denied relief. The Supreme Court denied the stay and the petition.