File:Glossip v. Gross.pdf
Original file (1,275 × 1,650 pixels, file size: 798 KB, MIME type: application/pdf, 127 pages)
Captions
Summary
editDescriptionGlossip v. Gross.pdf |
English: Because capital punishment is constitutional, there must be a constitutional means of carrying it out. After Oklahoma adopted lethal injection as its method of execution, it settled on a three-drug protocol of (1) sodium thiopental (a barbiturate) to induce a state of unconsciousness, (2) a paralytic agent to inhibit all muscular-skeletal movements, and (3) potassium chloride to induce cardiac arrest. In Baze v. Rees, 553 U. S. 35, the Court held that this protocol does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Anti-death-penalty advocates then pressured pharmaceutical companies to prevent sodium thiopental (and, later, another barbiturate called pentobarbital) from being used in executions. Unable to obtain either sodium thiopental or pentobarbital, Oklahoma decided to use a 500-milligram dose of midazolam, a sedative, as the first drug in its three-drug protocol. Oklahoma death-row inmates filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 action claiming that the use of midazolam violates the Eighth Amendment. Four of those inmates filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and argued that a 500-milligram dose of midazolam will not render them unable to feel pain associated with administration of the second and third drugs. After a three-day evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied the motion. It held that the prisoners failed to identify a known and available alternative method of execution that presented a substantially less severe risk of pain. It also held that the prisoners failed to establish a likelihood of showing that the use of midazolam created a demonstrated risk of severe pain. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. |
Date | |
Source | SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES |
Author | SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES |
Licensing
editPublic domainPublic domainfalsefalse |
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.
Note: This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision. This template also does not apply to postage stamp designs published by the United States Postal Service since 1978. (See § 313.6(C)(1) of Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices). It also does not apply to certain US coins; see The US Mint Terms of Use.
|
||
This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. |
https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/PDMCreative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0falsefalse
File history
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
Date/Time | Thumbnail | Dimensions | User | Comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
current | 11:25, 21 August 2015 | 1,275 × 1,650, 127 pages (798 KB) | Bryce Carmony (talk | contribs) | User created page with UploadWizard |
You cannot overwrite this file.
File usage on Commons
There are no pages that use this file.
File usage on other wikis
The following other wikis use this file:
- Usage on en.wikisource.org
- Index:Glossip v. Gross.pdf
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/1
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/2
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/3
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/4
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/5
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/6
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/7
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/8
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/9
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/10
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/11
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/12
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/13
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/14
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/15
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/16
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/17
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/18
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/19
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/20
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/21
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/22
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/23
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/24
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/25
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/26
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/27
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/28
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/29
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/30
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/31
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/32
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/33
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/34
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/35
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/36
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/37
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/38
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/39
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/40
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/41
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/42
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/43
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/44
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/45
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/46
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/47
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/48
- Page:Glossip v. Gross.pdf/49
View more global usage of this file.
Metadata
This file contains additional information such as Exif metadata which may have been added by the digital camera, scanner, or software program used to create or digitize it. If the file has been modified from its original state, some details such as the timestamp may not fully reflect those of the original file. The timestamp is only as accurate as the clock in the camera, and it may be completely wrong.
Short title |
|
---|---|
Date and time of digitizing | 13:00, 26 June 2015 |
Software used | PScript5.dll Version 5.2.2 |
File change date and time | 14:46, 26 June 2015 |
Date metadata was last modified | 14:46, 26 June 2015 |
Conversion program | Acrobat Distiller 11.0 (Windows) |
Encrypted | no |
Page size | 612 x 792 pts (letter) |
Version of PDF format | 1.6 |