What was meant to be a quick and less painful death turned into something far more tragic.

Mikal Mahdi, a man convicted of killing a police officer, chose to die by firing squad in South Carolina—believing it would be more humane than electrocution or lethal injection.

But things didn’t go as planned.

Mahdi’s lawyers say the execution, carried out on April 11, was botched.

Instead of a swift end, he appeared to suffer for far longer than expected.

And now, a separate autopsy ordered by his legal team is raising some serious concerns about how the state handled the entire process.

Shots Fired, But the Heart Missed

According to the independent autopsy, the marksmen who carried out Mahdi’s execution didn’t hit his heart.

Instead, bullets struck just above his abdomen, damaging his liver and pancreas—vital organs, but not immediately fatal targets.

Witnesses reported that Mahdi cried out after the shots were fired.

His body moved, his arms flexed, and he continued to breathe and groan for over a minute. He wasn’t pronounced dead until four minutes after the shots.

Autopsy Suggests Botched Procedure

Dr. Jonathan Arden, the pathologist hired by Mahdi’s attorneys, reported that Mahdi was likely conscious for 30 to 60 seconds—a painful stretch of time where his lungs struggled against broken ribs and a shattered sternum.

The report also points out inconsistencies.

While there were supposed to be three gunmen each with a live round, only two bullet wounds were found.

And state officials claim two bullets may have entered through the same hole, something Dr. Arden says he’s never seen in 40 years of practice.

Evidence Missing or Incomplete

Mahdi’s legal team believes the state failed to document the execution properly.

They say the official autopsy was missing key details—like X-rays, multiple photos of wounds, and any analysis of Mahdi’s clothing to confirm where the target was placed.

Only one image of his body was taken.

There were no close-ups of the injuries.

For a procedure this serious, Mahdi’s attorneys argue, that’s simply not acceptable.

Doubts Over Execution Accuracy

Even Mahdi’s lawyer, David Weiss, recalled thinking the target seemed oddly low when he saw it on Mahdi’s chest.

“I’m not an anatomy expert, but it didn’t look right,” he said.

The autopsy backs up his observation.

Only one chamber of Mahdi’s heart showed damage, while his liver and pancreas were heavily affected.

In contrast, a previous execution in March showed three clean bullet wounds and a completely destroyed heart.

Legal and Ethical Concerns Raised

Weiss says the botched execution raises bigger questions.

“If the state can’t carry out this kind of process properly,” he asked, “what does that say about oversight and training?”

His concern is that no one seems to be held accountable or even openly acknowledging that something went wrong.

Mahdi’s cremation means no further testing can be done to verify what actually happened.

A Dark Past and a Controversial End

Mikal Mahdi was sentenced to death for killing Public Safety officer James Myers in 2004.

He also admitted to murdering a convenience store clerk days earlier.

Myers’ body was found burned in a shed behind his own home.

Mahdi’s lawyers had asked Governor Henry McMaster for clemency, citing a lifetime of abuse and trauma.

They said Mahdi was abandoned by his mother, raised by a mentally ill father, and spent much of his youth in prison and solitary confinement.

But their request was denied.

The Final Moments

On April 11, in a small death chamber at a Columbia prison, Mahdi was strapped to a chair.

A hood was placed over his head, and a target was marked on his chest.

He gave no final statement and avoided looking at the witnesses behind bulletproof glass.

Just hours before, his last appeal had been rejected.

Public Reaction and Ongoing Debate

Critics of the death penalty argue this case shows exactly why executions—especially firing squads—should be re-evaluated.

If the state can’t ensure a quick, humane death, is it really justice?

Meanwhile, South Carolina continues to defend its procedures, though the inconsistencies and lack of transparency have many demanding answers.