Idaho Withheld Key Information in Death Penalty Case, raising Concerns of execution Secrecy
Boise, ID – idaho officials engaged in a deliberate effort to conceal information regarding the state’s lethal injection drug supply and procedures from the defense team of death row inmate Gerald Pizzuto, according to a new report by The Intercept. The obstruction, which included escalating revelation disputes to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, mirrors a growing national trend of states enacting secrecy laws surrounding executions, raising concerns about clarity and the potential for botched procedures.The withholding of information began in the months following a failed execution attempt of another Idaho inmate,Thomas Creech,in March 2024. Idaho justified its refusal to disclose details by citing a 2022 state statute designed to protect the identities of those involved in supplying execution drugs. This law is part of a broader movement: at least 16 states have passed similar secrecy statutes since 2010, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
“We’ve seen in a lot of other states, obstruction and using the artificial limits created by death warrants as a way of trying to force the courts to move the case along,” said Deborah Dunham, an attorney with the Death Penalty Policy Project. “And then, strategically, using the fact that thay’ve been able to obstruct discovery as a way of saying that the defense hasn’t come forward with facts to justify stopping the execution. It raises serious questions about whether the justice system is willing to do justice.”
The lack of transparency is notably troubling, experts say, as it hinders oversight and increases the risk of errors during executions. Robin Maher, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, stated, “The more secretive the process, the more likely it is that there will be a botched execution, because the right questions cannot be asked and answered before.”
Attorneys general have increasingly attempted to leverage these secrecy laws to block defense access to information that could potentially halt an execution. The case highlights a national debate over the balance between states’ rights to carry out capital punishment and the constitutional rights of defendants to a fair trial, including access to information crucial to challenging the method of their execution.
