Nevada lethal injection challenge still pending

CARSON CITY -- It will be at least several weeks before the effects of Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the use of lethal injection for capital punishment are known in Nevada, officials say.

The Nevada Supreme Court faces its own case challenging the state's use of lethal injection. The practice had been on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the issue, Nevada court spokesman Bill Gang said.

The Nevada court will now have to analyze the federal decision to determine how to proceed with its case, he said.

The Nevada case challenging the three-drug cocktail used to kill death row inmates was accepted by the Nevada court in 2007. The case had the effect of stopping the impending execution of Nevada death row inmate William Castillo. Castillo had sought to stop all of his appeals so he could voluntarily be executed.

The state Supreme Court halted Castillo's execution in mid-October, just 90 minutes before he was to get a lethal injection for beating an elderly Las Vegas woman to death with a tire iron.

Department of Corrections spokesman Greg Smith said a new court order would be required to proceed with Castillo's execution. Castillo remains on death row.

Castillo is one of the 84 convicts under sentence of death in Nevada.

Gang said each death penalty case will be considered individually by the Nevada Supreme Court in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Lee Rowland of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, whose case challenging lethal injection is before the Nevada Supreme Court, said where the state goes from here "is an open question."

The U.S. Supreme Court has said the three-drug cocktail used by states for execution is not a violation of the 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, she said.

But the Nevada case is more complicated because it also raises a First Amendment issue, which is whether the use of the second drug, pancuronium bromide, a muscle relaxant, creates a "chemical veil" that prevents the public from seeing the actual effects of the execution, Rowland said.

Rowland said she was most interested in the concurring opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who pointed out the drug serves no therapeutic purpose.

She praised Nevada officials for taking a deliberate approach to the questions raised in the decision.

Gary Taylor, an assistant federal public defender serving as counsel to Castillo, said he does not believe the U.S. Supreme Court decision clears the way for the unchallenged resumption of lethal injections in Nevada.

The ruling came out of a Kentucky case, where a number of safeguards are in place to ensure an execution is carried out properly and painlessly, he said.

"They have backups if things go wrong," Taylor said.

Nevada does not have these safeguards, he said.

"I still see numerous challenges to the Nevada protocol," Taylor said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal. com or 775-687-3900.