Details about execution drugs blocked by Nevada Supreme Court | NevadaAppeal.com

Details about execution drugs blocked by Nevada Supreme Court

Nevada Supreme Court.

A majority of the Nevada Supreme Court this week overturned the district court order requiring disclosure of details about the planned execution of Scott Dozier including the identity of the attending physician.

The order states the three drug companies trying to prevent their drugs from being used in the execution failed to show the relevance of disclosing the name of the doctor attending the planned execution.

The order also directs the district judge not to release information about drugs other than those originating with Alvogen, Hikma and Sandoz companies and not to release any of the execution protocols other than those already at issue in this case.

They ordered District Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez to issue protective orders and motions concerning those items.

The order states the three drug companies trying to prevent their drugs from being used in the execution failed to show the relevance of disclosing the name of the doctor attending the planned execution.

Recommended Stories For You

The drug companies went to court to prevent the state from using their drugs in the execution, charging the state wrongfully took those drugs into its possession to use in a manner not allowed and must return them.

The order was signed by Chief Justice Michael Douglas, and Justices Mark Gibbons, Jim Hardesty, Ron Parraguirre and Lidia Stiglich.

Dozier has repeatedly said he wants to be executed and recent reports filed in federal court say he has attempted to obtain the means to commit suicide while in prison awaiting resolution of his case. He's on death row for the murder of Jeremiah Miller, 22, one of his drug associates.

Justice Michael Cherry dissented from the order stating discovery matters are and should be within the district court's discretion unless the court clearly abused its discretion. He said that didn't happen in this case so he would dissent from the majority ruling.

Justice Kris Pickering didn't participate in the ruling.