COLUMBIA, SC – With just nine days until his scheduled execution, Brad Sigmon has filed an urgent motion with the South Carolina Supreme Court, requesting a stay of execution and raising serious concerns about the state’s lethal injection protocol.
Sigmon argues that recent executions, including the January 31 execution of Marion Bowman, reveal that South Carolina’s lethal injection drugs are unreliable and cause prolonged suffering—contrary to state assurances that the method is humane and effective.
“The evidence is clear,” Sigmon’s attorneys state in the motion. “Contrary to the certifications [from the South Carolina Department of Corrections], lethal injection via a single dose of pentobarbital is not available in South Carolina. It is a fiction.”
Sigmon’s motion follows the release of Bowman’s autopsy report, which confirms he suffered from pulmonary edema—fluid-filled lungs—after receiving a lethal injection that took 23 minutes to complete. This mirrors findings from the September 2024 execution of Richard Moore, which also documented severe lung damage and required a second dose of pentobarbital.
“The reality is that South Carolina’s lethal injection protocol is not functioning as promised,” said attorney Gerald King, Jr., Chief of the Capital Habeas Unit for the Fourth Circuit. “The state claims it has a safe and effective method, but we now have multiple executions where people are left gasping for air for 20 minutes or more. That’s not a humane execution—it’s torture.”
Sigmon, convicted in 2002 for a double homicide, was required under state law to select his method of execution by February 21. Lethal injection is the state’s default method, but if an individual objects, they must choose between the electric chair and the firing squad. At the time of his decision, Sigmon had not been provided access to Bowman’s autopsy report, nor had the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) answered how many doses of lethal drugs were used in recent executions.
“Mr. Sigmon was forced to make an impossible choice,” his attorneys argue in the motion. “Lacking the basic facts necessary to assess the risks of lethal injection gone wrong—much less to determine which of South Carolina’s methods is the more inhumane—he chose the firing squad.”
Sigmon’s filing highlights that three of the last four men executed in South Carolina were declared dead only after prolonged suffering. The most recent execution, that of Bowman, required twice the expected dosage of pentobarbital and resulted in severe pulmonary complications.
“It seems virtually certain that [Freddie Owens’] execution, which also lasted 20 minutes, involved the same failure,” Sigmon’s motion states. “If SCDC’s attestations about the quality and reliability of its lethal injection drugs were dubious before Bowman’s autopsy, they are now indefensible.”
In his motion, Sigmon is asking the South Carolina Supreme Court to reconsider its earlier denial of his challenge to the state’s lethal injection process. His attorneys are requesting that the court require SCDC Director Bryan P. Stirling to disclose critical information about the drugs used in executions, including:
- The expiration dates of South Carolina’s lethal injection drugs.
- Testing reports detailing the potency, purity, and stability of the drugs.
- Storage conditions, including temperature and humidity controls.
Without these disclosures, Sigmon’s legal team argues, he is being denied his constitutional right to due process.
“State laws give condemned prisoners a choice in their method of execution, but for that choice to be meaningful, they need accurate information,” said Joshua Snow Kendrick, one of Sigmon’s attorneys. “The state’s refusal to provide that information effectively robs Mr. Sigmon of that right.”
South Carolina law requires that lethal injection drugs be “of sufficient potency, purity, and stability” to ensure a humane execution. However, Sigmon’s motion contends that the repeated need for additional drug doses, combined with the severe suffering recorded in autopsy reports, contradicts the state’s claims that its lethal injection process meets this standard.
Sigmon’s motion draws upon a recent South Carolina Supreme Court ruling in Owens v. Stirling (2024), which required SCDC to certify that its lethal injection drugs were reliable. The ruling was meant to provide transparency, but Sigmon’s attorneys argue that the state’s disclosures have been inadequate.
“The court has set the bar too low for SCDC,” the motion states. “One execution after another demonstrates the inadequacy of these certifications, yet nothing changes. Mr. Sigmon is left with the ostensible right to ‘some basic facts’ about the lethal injection drugs, but no means of enforcing that right.”
Critics of South Carolina’s execution practices point out that the state has struggled for years to obtain lethal injection drugs, often citing “secrecy laws” to shield suppliers from scrutiny. Some argue that the state’s difficulties in securing reliable drugs have led to prolonged, botched executions.
“There is a reason why states are moving away from lethal injection,” said a spokesperson for the Death Penalty Information Center. “Without proper oversight and transparency, executions risk being carried out in a cruel and unusual manner, which violates constitutional protections.”
Sigmon’s execution is scheduled for March 7. His attorneys argue that there are “exceptional circumstances warranting the issuance of a stay,” citing precedent from In re Stays of Execution in Capital Cases (1996). They contend that further executions should be halted until the state can prove its lethal injection drugs meet basic legal and ethical standards.
“Neither the General Assembly nor this Court could have intended for lethal injection to leave three prisoners strapped to a gurney for twenty minutes before being declared dead, or drowning in blood and fluid from their own lungs,” the motion states.
Sigmon’s attorneys are urging the court to intervene before another execution takes place under what they call “grossly inadequate” conditions.
“South Carolina must stop pretending its execution process is working as designed,” Kendrick said. “The state owes it to the public—and to basic human decency—to ensure that executions are carried out in a manner that is both legal and humane. Right now, that is simply not happening.”
As of now, the South Carolina Supreme Court has not indicated whether it will reconsider Sigmon’s request for a stay. If denied, he will be the next person executed under a system that, his lawyers argue, is fundamentally flawed.
