Image Credit: Canva.
Note from The Tennessee Conservative: Editorial statements in this column are the sole opinion of the author; they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the staff of this publication.
Submitted by Trent D. Laviano –
After more than 31 years of appellate litigation, the State of Tennessee has attempted to carry out the death penalty to which Christa Pike had been sentenced in 1995. However, this simply resulted in another botched execution in what appears to be the latest episode of the ineptitude that has characterized the way that Tennessee operates its prison system.
This is the second instance since just last May. The previous one occurred when the execution team spent over an hour and a half unsuccessfully trying to locate a vein in order to carry the death sentence that had been imposed on Tony Carruthers in 1996 for a murder he had committed in 1995. It appears that the condemned prisoner may have caused to this to happen. There have been published reports that he had deliberately dehydrated himself in order to make it more difficult to locate a suitable vein. This resulted in Governor Bill Lee acting to grant him an immediate one year stay of execution. After the failed attempt to execute Christa Pike, he then announced that he was suspending all executions until further notice. Since he will complete his second term in January 2027, this ensured that he will not have to deal with this issue again. In other words, he decided to kick the can down the road and let the next Governor deal with the problem. However, Marsha Blackburn has already indicated that she intends to resume carrying out death sentences, to include using the electric chair if that becomes necessary.
The execution of Christa Pike had originally been scheduled to be carried out at 10:00 AM CDT on 30 September 2026. However, the defense attorneys managed to convince a 3 judge panel of the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati to issue a stay of execution. The Tennessee Attorney General’s office acted quickly and got the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the stay and the execution was rescheduled to take place at 8:00 PM the same day.
Although the use of lethal injection as a means to carry out death sentences was first proposed in 1888, Oklahoma was the state to enact it in 1977. The first actual use of lethal injection in the United States was by Texas in 1982. At this time 27 states have capital punishment and 22 of these utilize lethal injection as either the sole or primary method.
The rationale for the use of lethal injection is that it is less painful for the convict who is being executed. There also appears to be a public relations aspect to this that is based on the use of a method which is similar in appearance to a medical procedure.
While the stated intent was to make executions less stressful for the condemned individual, there have been numerous legal challenges based on the contention that lethal injection is “cruel and unusual” and that it is somehow unpleasant for the individual who is being put to death. That totally overlooks the fact that the very purpose of the process is to kill the individual who is being executed. It is worth noting that the death certificate for someone who has been executed will list the cause as “Judicial Homicide.” This brings to mind a comment contained in an opinion addressing this issue by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. He remarked that objections to lethal injection on that basis are essentially the same as filing a complaint with the Consumer Product Safety Commission by someone being executed by firing squad based on his being the consumer of the bullets that are used in the process.
A good deal of the controversy surrounding the efficacy of the use of lethal injection is due to the activities of an individual named Fred A. Leuchter. He saw the growing use of lethal injection as a means to get in on the ground floor of what he perceived to be a growth industry. Although he held patents for a geodetic instrument and an electronic sextant, there was nothing in his background to suggest any particular expertise as a designer of lethal injection equipment. He produced and sold lethal injection machinery to a number of states for a price of $30,000 per unit. He also designed and sold electric chairs and performed maintenance on the gallows that were then in use by Delaware.
The methodology and equipment which he devised and sold seems like something that was designed by a mad scientist. It was based on what was known as a “three drug protocol.”
This utilizes the sequential injection of thiopental (a barbiturate) to induce unconsciousness, pancuronium bromide (a muscle relaxant) to stop breathing, and potassium chloride to stop the heart. This was overly complex and in many ways resembled a cruel child pulling the wings off a fly.
Fred Leuchter was simply motivated by the money. He also engaged in what was essentially a form of extortion in order to pressure states into using his process and buying his equipment. If a state would not pay for his services, he threatened to testify against that state in litigation based on claims that their execution methods were inhumane. He was eventually discredited when it was determined that he had exaggerated his level of technical expertise and his company ultimately failed when states stopped doing business with him.
After a number of failures occurred during the use of the “three drug protocol,” many states switched to executions using a single lethal drug. This was long overdue and it is both simpler, less easy to botch and intended to be less traumatic to the one who is being executed. This involved the use of thiopental. This is a barbiturate which is commonly used for veterinary euthanasia. The use of this method began in 2009 and it was successfully used to cause death within a few minutes.
Tennessee has now adopted the use of a single drug as the means of execution by lethal injection. At this time, the procedure calls for the intravenous injection of two 50 mg/ml solution doses of Pentobarbital. However, this has three inherent flaws. The first of these is that an intravenous injection requires that the individual who administers the injection has to be able to successfully manage to insert the needle into the vein of the condemned prisoner. That can frequently be difficult for several reasons. Not everyone has veins that are easy to find and to inject. This is frequently true of even those who are quite healthy. It can also be especially difficult to do so when someone has veins that have been damaged by frequent previous injections or blood draws. In addition to that type of damage due to normal medical treatment, many convicts have extensive histories of intravenous drug abuse. It can also be more difficult in situations where the convict has deliberately dehydrated himself in order to make the process more difficult. That is what appears to have taken place prior to the failed attempt to execute Tony Carruthers in May 2026. The other potential flaw is the specific directive to administer the exact same dosage in every execution. This fails to account for the fact that not everyone is the same size and weight and that some individuals have a much higher tolerance for certain medications and that it may require a significantly larger dose in order to produce the same effect. That is a likely cause of what happened with Christa Pike. During the time that hanging was the prescribed method for executions, the language that was used to pronounce the sentence stated that the convicted criminal was “to be hanged by the neck until dead.” Therefore, both the statutory language for pronouncing a sentence of death by lethal injection, as well as the internal procedures of the Department of Correction should be amended to clearly state that the condemned individual is to receive a sufficient dosage to ensure death.
While the use of a single drug is clearly an improvement, there are simpler and more effective methods than the use of intravenous injection of a barbiturate. While barbiturates are frequently used for veterinary euthanasia, they are certainly not the only method that is used for that purpose. The definitive guide to this process can be found in a publication of the American Veterinary Medical Association which has the title AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 Edition. https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Guidelines-on-Euthanasia-2020.pdf
Section M2.7 of this publication can be found on page 35. It discusses the use of ultrapotent opioids such as etorphine and carfentanil as being 10,000 times more potent than morphine sulfate and their use as “euthanasia drugs primarily for large animals, particularly wildlife.” It also refers to the use of these drugs to euthanize “captive large apes.” It also notes the following as advantages of using these drugs: “(1) Etorphine and carfentanil can be delivered IM [intramuscularly] or transmucosally in situations where IV administration is unfeasible or dangerous. (2) These drugs have a rapid onset of action.” Since these can be easily administered without the need for any intravenous injection, and without causing any significant pain to the condemned prisoner, their usage in this context would appear to be ideal for this purpose.
Executions in Tennessee are to be carried out in accordance with a set of procedures which has the title: TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION LETHAL INJECTION EXECUTION PROTOCOL. (The Protocol)
This was published on 8 January 2025 and bears the signature of Frank Strada. He is the current Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction, having been appointed to that position by Governor Bill Lee in January 2023. He had previously been the Deputy Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections and prior to that he spent more than 30 years with the Federal Bureau of Prisons where he had been the Assistant Director of the Correctional Programs Division.
The Protocol is 44 pages in length and its stated purpose is “to promulgate rules and regulations to facilitate executions by lethal injection. This Protocol will be reviewed as needed by me and/or my designee(s).” https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/Protocol_Redacted-TN-2025.pdf?dm=1736451415
While it initially appears to be thorough and carefully drafted to provide an effective means for carrying out an execution, a closer examination will reveal a number of flaws which directly led to the failure of the executions of Tony Carruthers and Christa Pike. It completely overlooked what is known as “Murphy’s Law.” This states that “if anything can possibly go wrong, it will go wrong.”
The Protocol is a classic example of two well-known sayings. These are that “hope is not a method,’ and that “failing to plan is planning to fail.” While it thoroughly describes how an execution by lethal injection is supposed to take place, it completely neglects to address what should be done in the event that things do not go according to plan.
The planned execution of Christa Pike was not successfully completed because two 50 mg/ml doses of Pentobarbital failed to have the planned effect. The execution team then stopped the process and called for an ambulance. She was then taken to a hospital. While it is still too soon to know whether she will die or recover, there is also the possibility that she may end up in a coma for an extended period of time. That outcome would be both highly embarrassing for the Department of Correction as well as potentially very expensive for the State.
The decision to stop the execution rather than administering whatever quantity of Pentobarbital would be necessary to complete the task is a classic example of bureaucratic ineptitude. It is a lot like what was typical in the former Soviet Union. The apparatchiks who ran that regime were conditioned to do exactly as they had been instructed, no more and no less. Initiative was certainly not rewarded in that system. Anyone who deviated from instructions, and caused something to go wrong, could expect to face severe consequences. By the same token, showing initiative was also discouraged. In those rare instances when someone did that and achieved a better outcome, he was resented for making others look bad and viewed as a threat to their careers.
The individuals who attempted to carry out the execution followed the prescribed instructions. Their failure to exhibit enough initiative to seek authorization to adjust their actions in order to attain the planned end state was certainly unsatisfactory. However, the ultimate blame for what happened falls directly on Commissioner Strada. The Protocol contains the following language: “There will be no deviation from the Protocol, except by order of the Commissioner.” It appears that he had already made one change in the procedure. The Protocol calls for executions to begin at 10:00 AM local time (see page 19). The execution of Christa Pike had originally been scheduled for that time. However, it was delayed until the U.S. Supreme Court lifted the stay and the execution was rescheduled for that night. The rescheduling of an execution, even to later on the same date, could not have taken place without the express authorization of either the Commissioner or the Governor.
The use of lethal injection as the primary means of execution in Tennessee has been established by statute, Tennessee Code Annotated 40-23-114. This also retains the use of the electric chair as an alternative method in the event that it is not possible to utilize lethal injection. That is a binding legal requirement and would require action by both houses of the Legislature and the signature of the Governor to be changed. However, the Protocol is simply an administrative rule that was issued by the Commissioner of Correction. Either he, or members of his staff wrote it, and he signed it. The fact that he had the full legal authority to make whatever decision was necessary to see that task was successfully carried out and failed to do so, was entirely his fault. He should have either been actually present at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution or else immediately available by telephone. Once it became apparent that the procedures in the Protocol had failed, the execution team should have immediately notified him and he should have directed them to administer whatever quantity of Pentobarbital it would take to complete the task.
Both the Commissioner of Correction and ultimately the Governor bear full responsibility for this failure. It was readily foreseeable and entirely preventable. Both of them will be leaving office in the immediate future, and I am confident that Marsha Blackburn will take decisive action to address the many problems within the Department of Correction.
About the Author: Trent D. Laviano served in Iraq and is retired from the U.S. Army. He is currently an attorney in Tennessee.
