ArticleslgStudy

science

Glossip v. Chandler

Glossip v. Chandler is a science topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Glossip v. Chandler rather than just read about it. In short: Glossip v. Chandler is a United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma case in which the plaintiffs challenged the State of Oklahoma's execution protocol.

Glossip v. Chandler — main illustration
Glossip v. Chandler — illustration

Key takeaways

  • Glossip v. Chandler belongs to science; place it in that map before memorising details.
  • Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
  • Connect Glossip v. Chandler to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
  • Reproduce the core statement of Glossip v. Chandler from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Glossip v. Chandler is a United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma case in which the plaintiffs challenged the State of Oklahoma's execution protocol. The initial lawsuit, Glossip v. Gross, rose to the United States Supreme Court in 2015 at the preliminary injunction stage and involved an earlier version of Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol. The case was reopened in the District Court in 2020 following an end to Oklahoma's moratorium on executions.

Background

Execution of Clayton Lockett

In 2014, Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol came under scrutiny when Clayton Lockett died of a heart attack resulting from complications during his execution. Lockett was convicted of the 1999 kidnapping, rape, and murder of a 19-year-old woman. In 2015, Lockett and other death row inmates had unsuccessfully challenged an Oklahoma law allowing the names of companies supplying drugs used in executions to be kept secret in Glossip v. Gross. Lockett was scheduled to be executed on April 29, 2014, and after doctors had declared him unconscious, Lockett attempted to raise his head and speak and complained of a burning sensation. Lockett started convulsing after receiving a round of lethal drug injections. Governor Fallin asked the Department of Corrections to conduct a full review of the state's execution procedures. Autopsy reports indicated that Oklahoma State Penitentiary officials had used potassium acetate instead of potassium chloride and that Lockett had died of a heart attack during the execution.

Initial lawsuit Glossip v. Gross

On June 25, 2014, twenty-one Oklahoma death row inmates filed a lawsuit, Charles F. Warner, et al., v. Kevin J. Gross, et al., in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The lawsuit claimed that Oklahoma's execution protocol was unconstitutional, stating that there is autopsy evidence suggesting that the drugs used in lethal injection make people feel as though they are drowning through a "flash pulmonary edema" and like they are being "burned alive" violating the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Richard Glossip replaced Charles Frederick Warner as the named plaintiff after Warner was executed in January 2015 before the case was decided. The lawsuit advanced to the United States Supreme Court, and on June 29, 2015, the justices ruled 5–4 in Glossip v. Gross that the prisoners had not shown that they would be subject to an unconstitutional level of pain. The court also ruled that death row inmates challenging their execution method must present a known and available alternative. The executions of Richard Glossip, John Grant, and Benjamin Cole Sr. were stayed by the court. The lawsuit was then returned to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Following the Supreme Court's ruling, in October 2015 state officials imposed an execution moratorium, and the case was administratively closed by agreement for an indefinite period of time to permit the state to investigate and amend its execution procedures.

Execution of Charles Frederick Warner On January 15, 2015, Charles Frederick Warner was executed. On September 30, 2015, in investigations surrounding the planned execution of Richard Glossip, it became apparent that potassium acetate may have been used to execute Warner. After his execution, the drug vials and syringes used in Warner's execution were submitted to the Office of Chief Medical Examiner. On October 8, 2015, it was reported that, contrary to protocol, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections officials had used potassium acetate to execute Warner on January 15, 2015. An attorney representing Glossip and other Oklahoma death row inmates said logs from Warner's execution initialed by a prison staff member indicated the use of potassium chloride; however, an autopsy report showed twelve vials of potassium acetate were used.

Planned execution of Richard Glossip Oklahoma planned to execute Richard Glossip on September 30, 2015. Officials discovered that they had been delivered the drug potassium acetate instead of potassium chloride, which had been used in the botched execution of Lockett. After learning of the discrepancy, Governor of Oklahoma Mary Fallin called off Glossip's execution with a last-minute, indefinite stay, claiming it was a precaution since the doctor and pharmacist working with the Department of Corrections agreed that potassium chloride and potassium acetate were medically interchangeable. Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma Attorney General at the time, ordered a multicounty grand jury investigation of the execution drug error.

Moratorium The several botched executions resulted in a moratorium on executions in Oklahoma from October 2015 until 2021. On February 13, 2020, Oklahoma announced plans to resume executions in a press conference attended by Governor Kevin Stitt, Oklahoma Attorney General Michael J. Hunter and Department of Corrections Director Scott Crow. Stitt stated that "It is important that the state is implementing our death penalty law with a procedure that is humane and swift for those convicted of the most heinous of crimes, and claimed that Oklahoma had found a "reliable supply of drugs" to resume lethal injections.

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Illustrations

Glossip v. Chandler illustration

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Glossip v. Chandler

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Glossip v. Chandler claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In science, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Glossip v. Chandler before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Glossip v. Chandler ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Glossip v. Chandler

In research
Glossip v. Chandler appears in science research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry
Engineering practice reuses Glossip v. Chandler in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom
Glossip v. Chandler is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics 2015 in United States case law, 2022 in United States case law, Capital punishment in Oklahoma, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life
Look for Glossip v. Chandler outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.
Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “Glossip v. Chandler” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Glossip v. Chandler in 20 minutes

  1. Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
  2. Close the page and write down what Glossip v. Chandler means in your own words.
  3. Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
  4. Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
  5. Explain Glossip v. Chandler out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Glossip v. Chandler in simple terms?

Glossip v. Chandler is a United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma case in which the plaintiffs challenged the State of Oklahoma's execution protocol.

Why does Glossip v. Chandler matter?

Because it connects several science ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Glossip v. Chandler?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Glossip v. Chandler.

Tags

  • 2015 in United States case law
  • 2022 in United States case law
  • Capital punishment in Oklahoma
  • Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and death penalty case law
  • Lethal injection

Keep exploring