# Campbell v. Wood

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 8, 1994 · 18 F.3d 662

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486505

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles Rodman CAMPBELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tana WOOD, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary, Walla Walla, Washington; Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General, State of Washington, Respondents-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 8, 1994
- **Citations:** 18 F.3d 662; 1994 WL 33393
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Poole
- **Judges:** Wallace, Browning, Tang, Poole, Nelson, Reinhardt, Beezer, Wiggins, Thompson, O'Scannlain, Kleinfeld
- **Cited by:** 302 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486505

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that Snyder, 291 U.S. at 106, 117, 54 S.Ct. at 332, 336, and Allen, 397 U.S. at 342, 90 S.Ct. at 1060, by rejecting as "mere dicta" earlier statements of non-waivability in, e.g., Hopt and Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 13 S.Ct. 136, 36 L.Ed. 1011 (1892), hav…
- holding, in a capital case involving the question of whether the defendant properly waived his right to be present during empaneling of the jury, that “[t]he finding of a knowing and voluntary waiver is a mixed question of law and fact which we review de novo.”
- holding that an evidentiary hearing is not 17 necessary where the federal claim can be denied on the basis of the state court record, and 18 where the allegations, even if true, do not provide a basis for relief
- holding that an evidentiary hearing is not necessary where 6 the federal claim can be denied on the basis of the state court record, and where the 7 allegations, even if true, do not provide a basis for relief
- holding that judicial review of a method of execution “focuses more heavily on objective evidence of the pain involved in the challenged method” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

## Opinion text

POOLE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I believe that death by hanging inflicts intolerably cruel and unusual punishment, however heinous the crime; that it is unacceptable today as would be the rack and screw; and therefore is in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
I therefore dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486505. Public record. Not legal advice.