For Immediate Release: Monday, July 20, 2026

Contact: Laura.Burstein@squirepb.com

NEW FILING: Darrell Hines Asks Tennessee Supreme Court For a Conditional Stay of His August 13 Execution if TDOC Does Not Replace Under-Skilled Physician

Dr. Mark Fowler’s Inability to Set a Central Line Contributed to Failed Execution of Tony Carruthers in May; Mr. Hines’s Medical Condition Exacerbates Risk of Another Botch

(Nashville, Tennessee, Monday, July 20, 2026) Citing Darrell Hines’s risk of extreme pain and suffering during an attempted execution by an under-skilled physician, his attorneys asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to either order the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) to replace that physician or to appoint a special master to consider his Eighth Amendment claim.

Today’s filing can be accessed here.

On Friday, July 17, the Davidson County Chancery Court ordered TDOC to say whether it plans to use Dr. Mark Fowler to execute Mr. Hines. TDOC continues to refuse to provide this information, however, and the court stayed its order to allow review by a higher court.

“It’s shocking that the Tennessee Department of Correction won’t simply say whether it plans to keep using an execution physician who lacks the required qualifications. We are asking the Tennessee Supreme Court to ensure Darrell Hines is not subjected to the same unconstitutional treatment as in May’s botched execution attempt,” said Kit Thomas, an attorney for Mr. Hines.

Last fall, Dr. Fowler admitted under oath that he had not conducted a central intravenous line placement in over thirteen years and lacks privileges to do so at any hospital. On May 21, Dr. Fowler failed to establish a central IV line in Tony Carruthers, resulting in an hour-long botched execution attempt.

In a lawsuit filed last year, Mr. Hines and other death row plaintiffs alleged that they face an “intolerable risk of severe suffering due to TDOC’s current inability to perform executions in a reliable, consistent, and appropriately humane manner under the Protocol in light of TDOC’s culture, practices, and policies, as well as the unusual amount of discretion afforded by the Protocol’s vague and undemanding terms.” (Motion p. 5, citing Complaint pp. 138–140)

Among the problems with the 2025 Protocol is that it replaced the prior requirement that intravenous catheterization be performed by certified EMTs with “a vague, open-ended set of qualifications copied nearly verbatim from the now-abandoned lethal injection protocol of [TDOC] Commissioner [Frank] Strada’s former employer, the Arizona Department of Corrections.” (Motion p. 6) These qualifications are “functionally meaningless,” because they neither specify nor limit the type of “certification” or “qualifications” an IV Team member must possess. (Motion p. 6) TDOC’s use of Dr. Fowler reflects this lack of meaningful standards in the current protocol.

Today’s motion explains that Dr. Fowler’s identity became known after TDOC disclosed it inadvertently to the press and confirmed it during litigation last year. The chancery court found the state waived its right to conceal Dr. Fowler’s identity for the purposes of disclosing whether or not TDOC intends to use him in the scheduled execution of Mr. Hines.

In Dr. Fowler’s October 2025 deposition, he described his understanding of the execution physician’s role as merely to “certify the death of the inmate.” According to today’s filing, he also appeared unaware that the protocol required him to be able to perform a central line procedure until the prisoners’ attorneys brought it to his attention. (Motion pp. 11–12)

Today’s motion further explains that in a central IV-line procedure involving the jugular or subclavian vein, the standard of care requires elevating the patient’s feet and lowering their head to facilitate blood flow to the desired veins and to prevent an air embolism from traveling to the brain and causing a stroke. (Motion pp. 24–25) Dr. Fowler made no attempt to elevate Mr. Carruthers’s feet and lower his head during his failed execution.

Given these problems, the motion explains, “Mr. Hines hoped and expected that TDOC would expeditiously announce that it would no longer rely on [Dr. Fowler] for executions.” (Motion p. 17) But instead, it refuses to do so. The chancery court found that the circumstances may create a substantial likelihood that TDOC plans to use Dr. Fowler to execute Mr. Hines.

“We don’t need to speculate about the risk of harm from using Dr. Fowler to execute Mr. Hines,” said Thomas. “We saw it in the last execution attempt, and there is every reason to believe that as long as TDOC uses Dr. Fowler, prisoners face prolonged, torturous, and potentially failed executions.”

Today’s motion stresses that Mr. Hines is at even greater risk of suffering during an execution by Dr. Fowler because of Mr. Hines’s already impaired condition. The motion further explains that TDOC’s neglect played a significant role in that condition. (Motion pp. 21–23)

In early December, Mr. Hines suffered an ischemic stroke. The prison initially called for an ambulance to transport him to an outside hospital for care, but TDOC’s medical contractor inexplicably turned the ambulance away, determining that an in-house CT scan would suffice. (Motion p. 22) That CT scan did not happen for three weeks, however, and although it confirmed the ischemic stroke, Mr. Hines was not provided with aspirin for another two weeks and was denied the anti-coagulant medication a doctor prescribed for him. (Motion p. 22). Unsurprisingly, Mr. Hines suffered another stroke in mid-January and collapsed, hitting his head. Since that time, he has been confined to the prison infirmary, where he remains paralyzed on the left side, has partial left-sided blindness, and has suffered severe muscle atrophy. (Motion pp. 22–23).

Mr. Hines’s condition intensifies the fear that he will suffer as Mr. Carruthers did during an execution by Dr. Fowler. In fact, because of his age (at 66, a decade older than Mr. Carruthers), extreme thinness, and muscular atrophy, Mr. Hines is very likely to require the placement of a central line, and “TDOC’s reckless reliance on [Dr. Fowler] would subject him to an intolerable risk of severe suffering, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.” (Motion p. 43) The obvious alternative, he explains, is for TDOC to use “a physician other than [Dr. Fowler] who is appropriately credentialed in the placement of central intravenous lines.” (Motion p. 43)

Concerns about TDOC’s ability to conduct executions have been mounting in the wake of Mr. Carruthers’s botched execution attempt and TDOC’s refusal to provide a detailed review of what went wrong.

On June 25, nine Republican State Senators sent a letter to Governor Lee requesting a pause in executions until there can be an independent review of what went wrong in the failed execution of Mr. Carruthers.

On July 2, State Representative Jody Barrett (R-District 69) sent a letter to TDOC Commissioner Frank Strada seeking detailed information about TDOC’s review of the Carruthers execution attempt and the changes it is implementing to prevent a recurrence of those problems.  

On July 16, a group of Tennessee faith leaders held a news conference to express concern about Governor Lee’s refusal to pause executions and investigate how TDOC protocols failed during Mr. Carruthers’s failed execution.

In addition, on July 8, Mr. Hines’s attorneys renewed their request for Governor Bill Lee to grant a reprieve “until the Tennessee courts fully consider the constitutionality of the 2025 Lethal Injection Protocol, including its related policies and practices regarding selection and retention of execution personnel.” Mr. Hines’s attorneys also cite his seriously debilitated medical condition.

For more information or to speak to an attorney for Darrell Hines, please contact Laura Burstein at Laura.Burstein@squirepb.com.

###