Justices Uphold Executions by Lethal Drugs

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states may continue to use lethal injections to execute condemned murderers, rejecting the claim that federal authorities must make sure in advance that the drugs used will not produce slow, agonizing death.

The justices held unanimously that the federal Food and Drug Administration need not certify that lethal injections now permitted in 13 states--not including California--will make death swift and painless.

The court, in an opinion by Justice William H. Rehnquist, overturned what it said was an “implausible” decision by a federal appeals court here that the FDA was required to ensure that states use only drugs that are “safe and effective” for human executions.

Used in Eight Executions

Injections have been used thus far in eight executions--all in Texas and North Carolina. Critics, citing the slow deaths of some of those executed, urged the court to make the FDA step in to prevent what one medical group called “amateur poisonings.” But the Supreme Court held that the FDA’s refusal was not subject to judicial review--and that only Congress could change the law to ensure intervention.

The court, often criticized for unduly favoring the prosecution, issued two other rulings siding with defendants.

In one case, the justices, citing the right to privacy, ruled that criminal suspects ordinarily may not be forced to undergo surgery for removal of a bullet that could be used as evidence against them (Winston vs. Lee, 83-1334). The court unanimously refused to approve the forcible recovery of a bullet embedded about one-inch deep in the chest of a robbery suspect who authorities said was wounded in an exchange of gunfire with his victim.

The justices held also that suspects may not be forcibly taken to police headquarters for fingerprinting when officers have neither a warrant nor sufficient evidence for an arrest. However, the court strongly implied that “on-site” fingerprinting might be permissible if it were done quickly when suspects were stopped for questioning (Hayes vs. Florida, 83-6766).

Time-Limit Case

In another case, the court refused to set a precise time limit on how long police officers may detain suspects when there is not yet enough evidence for arrest. In a 7-2 decision, the court conceded that at some point the length of such detentions could be excessive--but it said that what was permissible would depend on whether policemen “diligently pursued” their investigation to confirm or dispel their suspicions.

In an opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the court reinstated the convictions of two South Carolina drug traffickers--both now fugitives--who were held for about 20 minutes before they were arrested (U.S. vs. Sharpe, 83-529).

The use of lethal injections in executions has drawn increased attention. By recent count, more than 200 of about 1,400 inmates now on Death Row face execution by injection.

Some of those who have been executed by injection did not die quickly. In 1982, Charlie Brooks, the first inmate executed by injection since the death penalty was restored in 1976, took seven minutes to die. In 1984, James David Autry waited 15 minutes for the drugs to take effect, wincing and complaining of pain. Earlier this month, it took 40 minutes to insert a needle into the arm of Stephen Peter Morin, whose veins were collapsed from narcotics use.

Inmates Bring Suit

In the case before the court (Heckler vs. Chaney, 83-1878), a group of Death Row inmates from Texas and Oklahoma brought suit seeking a court order requiring the FDA to test the drugs used for executions to make sure they were swift and painless.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in 1983 that the FDA must intervene to make sure that prisoners facing death by lethal injection did not suffer from “cruel and unusual” punishment, which is barred by the Eighth Amendment. Later, however, Chief Justice Burger issued a stay of the ruling, permitting executions by injection to proceed pending a decision by the justices in the case.

The court found Wednesday that administrative agencies like the FDA have wide discretion in exercising their authority--and that courts could intervene only when Congress enacts laws that allow it.