Document: 480 U.S. 527 107 S.Ct. 1394 94 L.Ed.2d 539 Louis J. TRUESDALE, Jr.v.James AIKEN, Warden, et al. No. 86-5530. March 23, 1987. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Supreme Court South carolina. PER CURIAM. 1 The motion petitioner leave proceed in forma pauperis and the petition a writ certiorari are granted. judgment Carolina, is reversed. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 586, 98 2954, 57 973 (1978); Skipper 476 1, 106 1669, 90 (1986). See also United States Johnson, 457 537, 549, 102 2579, 2586, 73 202 (1982). 2 It so ordered. 3 Rehearing Denied May 18, 4 481 1060, 2204. 5 Justice POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, dissenting. 6 Today grants summarily reverses decision Carolina that had refused apply (1986), retroactively cases were final at time was decided. I continue believe appropriate test applying this Court's criminal law decisions federal habeas corpus petitions analysis set forth by Harlan Mackey States, 401 667, 681-695, 91 1160, 1174-1181, 28 404 (1971) (opinion concurring dissenting from Williams 646, 1171, 388 (1971)). Griffith Kentucky, 479 314, 328-329, 708, 716, 93 649 (1987) (POWELL, J., concurring). In Mackey, argued "it sounder, adjudicating petitions, generally prevailing conviction became than it seek dispose all these on basis intervening changes constitutional interpretation." U.S., 689, S.Ct., 1178.1 7 Application principles case not simple. (1978), Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 869, 71 (1982), decided before petitioner's final. Accordingly, under retroactivity adopted our recent supra, entitled benefit those decisions. appears think Skipper, merely applied settled new fact situation, thus Skipper.2 8 do agree Skipper. result "not required Eddings," 9, 1673 judgment) (citations omitted). Eddings, held Eighth Amendment prohibits excluding, capital-sentencing proceeding, relevant evidence tends lessen defendant's culpability. 604, 2964; 114, 876. rule extended require admission unrelated Rather, State admit probable future conduct as prisoner.3 Neither author plurality opinion nor agreed Although am course bound merits incompatible my view broke ground. Therefore, incorrect existing when court accord precedents conviction. 9 acknowledge we cannot determine certainty how would have convicted.4 Because inherent subjectivity determination, find summary disposition appropriate. Moreover, there several questions related been At least context addressed standards which should retroactive effect like arguably follow pre-existing precedents. Nor has whether same rules state postconviction proceedings proceedings. A substantial argument could be made question procedural that—whatever eventually may become—state courts considering such need consider developments occur after Of course, resolve without full briefing consideration. 10 If properly presented, vote grant certiorari. As more important directly raised, deny petition. seems me reversal wholly inappropriate, accordingly dissent. identified two exceptions rule: "place . certain kinds primary, private individual beyond power law-making authority," 692, 1179, where "claims nonobservance procedures 'implicit concept ordered liberty,' " id., 693, 1180 (quoting Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 325, 58 149, 151, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937)). applicable case. supports conclusion reference statement "when different factual situations, no real arisen later retrospectively, because altered any material way." Id., 2586. explained: "Consideration past indicative his behavior an inevitable undesirable element sentencing: 'any sentencing authority must predict convicted person's engages process determining what punishment impose.' 5, 1671, (1986) Jurek Texas, 428 262, 275, 96 2950, 2957, 49 929 (1976) (joint STEWART, STEVENS, JJ.)). "past conduct" referred Skipper's good death sentence. first note difficulty making determinations. Desist 394 244, 263-269, 89 1030, 1041-1044, 22 248 (1969) (Harlan, dissenting); 695, 1181, (1971), Harlan, 1148, (1971).

Category: 0