Fierro v. Gomez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “within 10 days after the warden's service upon the inmate of an execution warrant issued following the operative date of this subdivision.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fierro v. Terhune · 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5304, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7455 David Fierro Alejandro Gilbert Ruiz and Robert Alton Harris, as Individuals and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. C.A. Terhune, as an Individual and in His Capacity as Director, California Department of Corrections and Arthur Calderon, as an Individual, and in His Capacity as Warden of San Quentin Prison

2. “Fierro II "). In Fierro II, the district court concluded that "California Penal Code § 3604, to the extent that it requires or permits the imposition of death by administration of lethal gas, violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5304, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7455 David Fierro Alejandro Gilbert Ruiz and Robert Alton Harris, as Individuals and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. C.A. Terhune, as an Individual and in His Capacity as Director, California Department of Corrections and Arthur Calderon, as an Individual, and in His Capacity as Warden of San Quentin Prison · Fiero v. C.a. Terhune

3. “First, the key question to be answered in a challenge to a method of execution is how much pain the inmate suffers.... Death where unconsciousness is likely to be immediate or within a matter of seconds is apparently within constitutional limits. While the Campbell court did not pinpoint a threshold at which the time to unconsciousness and the corresponding pain would violate the Constitution, the court implied that the persistence of consciousness for over a minute or for between a minute and a minute-and-a-half, but no longer than two minutes might be outside constitutional boundaries. Campbell also made clear that the method of execution must be considered in terms of the risk of pain. The Campbell court determined that under the Washington hanging protocol, the risk of a prolonged and agonizing death by asphyxiation or decapitation was negligible.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Fierro v. Gomez