Fierro v. Gomez
1996 WL 75876, 77 F.3d 301 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An execution method that creates a substantial risk of causing an inmate to suffer extreme pain while remaining conscious for several minutes constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Facts:
- David Fierro, Alejandro Gilbert Ruiz, and Robert Alton Harris were inmates sentenced to death in California.
- At the time their lawsuit was filed, California's sole statutory method of execution was the administration of lethal gas.
- Robert Alton Harris was scheduled for, and subsequently put to death by, lethal gas in San Quentin's gas chamber on April 21, 1992.
- Official prison records and eyewitness accounts from Harris's execution, and a later execution of David Mason, documented that inmates remained conscious for several minutes after the cyanide gas was released.
- These records showed that the inmates exhibited signs of intense, visceral pain, such as violent convulsions and clenching their fists, during the period they remained conscious.
- In response to the litigation, the California Legislature amended its law to permit inmates to choose lethal injection as an alternative method of execution.
Procedural Posture:
- Three death row inmates filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against state prison officials.
- The district court granted a temporary restraining order to stop an impending execution, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated it.
- After the U.S. Supreme Court vacated several subsequent stays, plaintiff Robert Alton Harris was executed, but the case proceeded on behalf of the remaining plaintiffs.
- Following an eight-day bench trial, the district court found that execution by lethal gas violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
- The district court issued a permanent injunction, barring the defendants from using lethal gas as a method of execution.
- The defendants, James Gomez and Arthur Calderon (appellants), appealed the district court's final judgment and permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California's method of execution by lethal gas, which causes inmates to remain conscious and suffer extreme pain for several minutes, constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Pregerson, Circuit Judge
Yes. California's method of execution by lethal gas is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment. The district court's factual findings, based on an eight-day trial with extensive expert testimony and official prison records, were not clearly erroneous. This evidence established that inmates executed by lethal gas are likely to remain conscious for fifteen seconds to over a minute, with a substantial risk that consciousness persists for several minutes. During this period, they experience extreme, visceral pain akin to suffocation or a major heart attack, a state described as 'air hunger'. Applying the framework from Campbell v. Wood, which focuses on the objective evidence of pain, the court found that the duration and intensity of suffering caused by lethal gas far exceed what is constitutionally permissible. Unlike the hanging method upheld in Campbell, where unconsciousness was found to be nearly immediate, execution by lethal gas involves a lingering period of excruciating pain, which by itself is sufficient to violate the Eighth Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the duration and intensity of pain are critical factors in evaluating a method of execution under the Eighth Amendment's 'cruel and unusual punishments' clause. It solidifies the principle that even a historically accepted method of execution can be deemed unconstitutional if presented with sufficient factual evidence of the suffering it causes. The court's reliance on a detailed evidentiary record from the trial court set a high bar for future challenges and defenses of execution protocols. This ruling significantly contributed to the decline of lethal gas as a method of execution in the United States, pushing states toward what were considered more humane alternatives like lethal injection.
