Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-7955_aplc.pdf
Page Number: 107

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

11 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

the  Court  disregards  an  objectively  intolerable  risk  of
severe pain. 

A 
Like  the  Court,  I  would  review  for  clear  error  the  Dis­
trict Court’s finding that 500 milligrams of midazolam will
render  someone  sufficiently  unconscious  “ ‘to  resist  the
noxious  stimuli  which  could  occur  from  the  application  of 
the second and third drugs.’ ”  Ante, at 18–19 (quoting App. 
77).  Unlike  the  Court,  however,  I  would  do  so  without 
abdicating our duty to examine critically the factual predi­
cates  for  the  District  Court’s  finding—namely,  Dr.  Evans’ 
testimony  that  midazolam  has  a  “ceiling  effect”  only  “at 
the  spinal  cord  level,”  and  that  a  “500  milligram  dose  of 
midazolam” can therefore “effectively paralyze the brain.” 
Id.,  at  78.  To  be  sure,  as  the  Court  observes,  such  scien­
tific  testimony  may  at  times  lie  at  the  boundaries  of  fed­
eral courts’ expertise.  See ante, at 17–18.  But just because 
a  purported  expert  says  something  does  not  make  it  so. 
Especially  when  important  constitutional  rights  are  at
stake,  federal  district  courts  must  carefully  evaluate  the
premises and evidence on which scientific conclusions are 
based,  and  appellate  courts  must  ensure  that  the  courts
below  have  in  fact  carefully  considered  all  the  evidence
presented.  Clear  error  exists  “when  although  there  is
evidence to support” a finding, “the reviewing court on the 
entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction 
that  a  mistake  has  been  committed.”    United  States  v. 
United  States  Gypsum  Co.,  333  U. S.  364,  395  (1948).
Here,  given  the  numerous  flaws  in  Dr.  Evans’  testimony,
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  District  Court  clearly
erred in relying on it.

To begin, Dr. Evans identified no scientific literature to
support  his  opinion  regarding  midazolam’s  properties  at
higher-than-normal  doses.    Apart  from  a  Material  Safety 
Data  Sheet  that  was  relevant  only  insofar  as  it  suggests