Document: 528 U.S. 225120 S. Ct. 727145 L. Ed. 2d 727 LONNIE WEEKS, JR., PETITIONER v. RONALD J. ANGELONE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS No. 99-5746 SUPREME COURT THE UNITED STATES December 6, 1999, Argued January 19, 2000, Decided ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT. 176 F.3d 249, affirmed. REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of Court, in which O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed a dissenting opinion, GINSBURG BREYER, joined, SOUTER, joined as to Parts II, III, IV. CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST Court. 1 This case presents question whether Constitution is violated when trial judge directs capital jury's attention specific paragraph constitutionally sufficient instruction response regarding proper consideration mitigating circumstances. We hold that it not habeas relief barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1994 ed., Supp. III). 2 Petitioner Lonnie Weeks, Jr., was riding from Washington, D. C., Richmond, Virginia, passenger car driven his uncle, Lewis Dukes. had stolen vehicle home burglary earlier month. The two sped past marked Virginia State Trooper Jose Cavazos, who monitoring traffic. Cavazos activated emergency lights took chase. After passing other vehicles on highway shoulder, Dukes stopped an exit ramp. approached driver's side foot. Upon trooper's request, alighted stood near rear car. still standing side, asked petitioner step out well. As Weeks stepped passenger's he carried 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistol loaded with hollow-point bullets. proceeded fire six bullets at trooper, entered body right left shoulder straps protective vest, four forearms wrist. died within minutes. 3 arrested next morning. During routine questioning about physical mental state classification officers, confessed, indicating considering suicide because shot trooper. also voluntarily wrote letter jail officer admitting killing expressing remorse. 4 tried Circuit Court for Prince William County, October 1993. jury found him guilty murder, 2-day penalty phase followed. In this proceeding prosecution sought prove aggravating circumstances: "would commit criminal acts violence would constitute continuing serious threat society" conduct "outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible inhuman, involved depravity mind aggravated battery." App. 192. phase, defense presented 10 witnesses, including petitioner, mitigation. 5 retired 10:40 a.m. second day begin deliberations. At around noon, informed counsel following question: 6 "Does sentence life imprisonment have possibility parole, if so, under what conditions must be met receive parole?" Pet. Cert. 90. 7 responded follows: 8 "You should impose such punishment you feel just evidence, instructions You are concern yourselves may happen afterwards." Ibid. 9 agreed judge's objected. 12:40 p.m., court reconvened told jurors there one-hour luncheon recess they could go lunch continue deliberations, juror apparently bailiff might interested working through lunch. 12:45 courtroom. 3:15 received written jury: "If we believe Jr. least alternatives, then our duty issue death penalty? Or decide (even though one alternatives) penalty, sentences? What Rule? Please clarify?" Id. 91 (emphasis original). 11 response: "See Instruction # (Beginning 'If find . ')." explained answer 12 "In number given them, paragraph, reads, evidence Commonwealth has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, either alternative, unanimous, fix defendant death, all justified, shall life, fine exceed $ 100,000.' 13 "I don't I can any clearer than instruction, so done referred them 2, beginning with, 'if from,' et cetera, read paragraph." n1 222-223. 14 stated solution appropriate. Defense disagreed, stated: 15 "Your Honor, ask Your Honor instruct even both factors -- I'm sorry, been proved sentence, plus fine." Id., 223. 16 objection noted. 17 More hours later, returned. clerk its verdict: 18 "We jury, having unanimously committing offense outrageously inhumane, battery, considered mitigation offense, ." 225 added). 19 were polled affirmatively foregoing their verdict case. 20 47 assignments error direct appeal Supreme assignment respecting answering circumstances 44. affirmed petitioner's conviction holding claims advances here lack merit. 248 Va. 460, 465-466, 476-477, 450 S.E.2d 379, 383, 390 (1994), cert. denied, 516 829 (1995). dismissed petition jurisdictionally timeliness grounds. District denied request federal relief, Appeals Fourth certificate appealability petition. 249 (1999). granted certiorari, 527 1060 (1999), now affirm. 21 relies heavily decisions Bollenbach United States, 326 607, 90 350, 66 402 (1946), Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 71 1, 102 869 (1982). supplemental inquiry respect like present but palpably erroneous. 611. quite unlike arose bench case, reversed refused consider evidence: "It instructed disregard proffered behalf." 114. 22 [Here gave no instruction. On contrary, upheld Buchanan Angelone, 522 269, 139 702, 118 757 (1998), being allow evidence. And addition, "you circumstance support it." n2 Even dissenters said ambiguity cleared up "some mention anywhere instructions." 283. 23 ]In Buchanan, Eighth Amendment required particular factors. Buchanan's precisely same pattern Weeks' jury. See 272, n. 1. noted cases established sentencer precluded considering, refuse consider, relevant structure long does preclude giving effect it. 276. further "standard determining satisfy these principles 'whether likelihood applied challenged way prevents evidence.'" (quoting Boyde California, 494 370, 380, 108 316, 110 1190 (1990)). But, never held manner juries concluded there, again here, did violate those principles: 24 "The foreclose By directing base decision 'all evidence,' afforded opportunity factor doubt 'may fix' directed believed justified lesser 'shall' sentence. thus allowed proved." 277. 25 above, explicit direction Buchanan. Thus, far adequacy concerned, sufficiency follows fortiori n3 26 ]Given adequately instructed, precise adequate answers inquiry, becomes requires anything more. not. 27 A presumed follow instructions. Richardson Marsh, 481 200, 211, 95 176, 107 1702 (1987). Similarly, understand question. See, e.g., Armstrong Toler, 258, Wheat. 279, 468 (1826) (opinion Marshall, J.). inform after reading role. ibid. ("Had desired information, might, probably would, signified desire court. utmost willingness manifested gratify fairly nothing ask"). To presume otherwise require reversal every time inquires matter constitutional significance, regardless answer. [7] Here presumption gains additional several empirical First foremost, each open included finding "considered offense." n4 225. It significant, think, deliberated more receiving Over 1/2 issue. Again, was: 29 30 indicates asked, determined doubt. passed between appropriate answered returning verdict. cannot, course, know certain transpired during hours. But most likely explanation doing exactly do: is, weighing against If, question, thought give upon circumstance, unlikely consumed deliberation. demonstrated too shy questions, suggesting another felt unsatisfactory. Finally, specifically closing argument proven death. once only text approved mitigation, see supra, own recollection counsel's guidance. best, exists slight itself Such demonstration insufficient violation Boyde, showing restrained. n5 380. 31 appears attorneys view flaw time. Petitioner's attorney made oral motion set aside received, incident motion. low priority space assigned point suggests emphasis some earmarks afterthought. 32 Because seeks writ corpus determine precludes relief. below did. 261. agree. Section prohibits claim "adjudicated merits proceedings," unless adjudication resulted "contrary to, unreasonable application of, clearly Federal law, States." §§ (1) For reasons affirming neither to," nor involve "unreasonable of," decisions. judgment 33 Affirmed. 34 whom BREYER join, SOUTER joins Part I, dissenting. 35 Congress us apply "clearly law" exercise jurisdiction. rule govern disposition emphasizes importance clarity misunderstand governing law. (1990), confronted erroneous, sufficiently ambiguous "subject erroneous interpretation." "the evidence." 36 ------------------------------------------Footnotes 37 statute, amended 1996, authorizes issuance state-court "was contrary 2254(d)(1) 38 record establishes, "reasonable likelihood" confusion, virtual certainty realize distinct legal bases concluding "justified." understood alleged Despite enlightenment, however, tell circumstances, "duty penalty." 217. 39 creatively afterthought," ante, 10, note repeatedly argued forms inadequate "'the sentencing opposed death.'" 178. id. 179, 180, 185-186, 40 Four different aspects cumulatively provide compelling conclusion law authorized "not penalty" "guilty 1" circumstance. Each points separate comment: instructions; (2) responses inquiries; (3) jury; (4) reporter's transcription polling 41 * prosecutor relied critical differed (1998). contain longer description ways imposing penalty; especially lawfully refusing aggravator, warranted best quoting itself: 42 "'Before fixed alternatives: one, that, history background, probability society, two; horrible, battery victim, minimum necessary accomplish act murder. 43 "'If alternative death; or, imprisonment, amount, 100,000.'" 199-200. 44 first half perfectly clear. They unambiguously order justify circumstance." clause ambiguous. mean either: 45 "even outweighs [at life];" 46 "if life]." reiterate BREYER's believing latter message non-lawyer receive. 281-284 (dissenting opinion). Nor disagree Court's trained lawyers logicians create "simple decisional tree" enable decipher intended meaning 277-278, 4, identify risk failed do so. 48 That reiterated later instructions, 8, 3. Reiterating already serve clarify statement. 49 magnified fact explain why determination. make clear concerning background deciding proved. not, purpose lawful justification Indeed, task "after society," 192-193 added), infer threshold aggravator understanding confusion serves dual purpose. II 50 copy room submitted deliberating demonstrates uncertain identified, uncertainty dissipated counsel. 51 clarify." 52 portion possibly prompted quoted above. peradventure confused them. There reason authorize 53 Although easy straightforward categorical simple question; merely re-examine they, effect, understand. "to "Weeks alternatives." Without simple, clear-cut statement belief incorrect, surely belief. 54 impossible part because, response, benefit argument, averred award factor. 9-10. counsel, coming did, before began prevent asking place. Moreover, wisely "arguments generally carry less weight former usually billed advance matters viewed statements advocates; latter, often recognized, definitive binding law." 384 (citing cases) (citation omitted). 55 Instead accepting commonsense interpretation colloquy judge, (a rebutted itself), 7, presumes repeat re-reading continued deliberate meant place, again? seems me disrespectful unambiguous directly. previously related decision, 217 tended discourage repetition 56 Chief Justice Marshall's (1826), failure arguably unclear; assumed put answered." contrast, mystery wanted know; unable unwilling 57 logic, rather exceptionally assertive twice maybe topic "reasonably likely" confused. apt recognition actually occupied final 9, light offered, very equally deliberation devoted debate (having magically satisfied theretofore question). 58 reliance improbable correctly deciphered pronouncing: "To answer." Ante, 8. obvious First, avoided error. Second, resolved, basis flows positing single whether, relevance decision. fear constant regard vastly overstated. 59 When comes imposition justice fundamental humanity underlying Amendment" full assessment defendant's character, individual worth. 112, context, finds explanations equipoise, 50-50 chance mandate overwhelming grounds reversal. 60 Other inapplicable presumptions speculation, squarely "defendant need establish impermissibly inhibited instruction," standard. standard effectively drains meaning. III 61 provided five forms, three Three first, second, One expect cover despite proof forms; Rather, alternatives choice without fine. form 62 "We, defendant, GUILTY CAPITAL MURDER death." 196. 63 ultimately select form, indicated crimes society. unquestionably unusually persuasive offered personal testimony describing events extreme recognized "history background" sheds 64 refusal society explains use covered option supported aggravators. n6 then, third n7 fourth fifth finding. n8 expressly objected "do factors," id., 65 treat [sic] 67 inhuman and/or 197-198. 68 read: 228. 69 aggravation life." identical except providing "at fine" amount filled 198. 70 helps wrong speculation postulates alternatives," decided. remaining spent Of used word "if" "since," speculation. important, however inasmuch cannot deliberations eliminated options, identified based "1 alternatives" my judgment, conscientious struggling "that itself, reference again, nor, see, finally faced. IV facts recite indicates, presumably credited witnesses. explained, vast difference established, assuming sophisticated rely reason, reliance, misplaced. 72 significant aspect notation reporter unique. (At recall seeing comparable transcripts proceedings reviewed 24-plus years.) transcript states polled, "a majority members [were] tears." Given character testimony, n9 "reasonable" performed regarded notwithstanding strong spare Weeks. Tragically, acted misunderstanding duty. 73 showed, among things, well-behaved student star high school athlete, 130-133, lived poor community, 131-132, raised well-meaning grandmother mother's drug addiction, 143, 167; fell bad crowd, 150, 153, missing college girlfriend became pregnant decided stay help her raise child, 109; and, learned words, extremely remorseful, 127-128. 74 respectfully dissent. 75 No.2, entirety, 76 convicted punished sentenced 100,000.00. Before 77 "1. That, society; 78 "2. victim 79 live 80 100,000.00." 192-193. 81 titled "EVIDENCE IN MITIGATION" full: 82 "Mitigation excuse crime guilty. fairness your bare crime. 83 "Mitigating include, limited relating age, education, environment, extenuating tend reduce moral culpability deserving 84 accord judgment." 195. 85 STEVENS attempts distinguish n.1, "Weeks' description" Post, 2-3. 271. mere addition affect "ambiguous." 4. 86 importantly, stating "point itself," post, 3, fails quote applies Specifically, instructs supra. stands contrast offers whichever feels situation. existence makes function clearer. 87 STEVENS' arguments sentences miss mark. suggest prerequisite event, insufficient, unconstitutionally 88 establishes "virtual certainty" 2. reached seven justices district judges Circuit, described extravagant hyperbole. 89 dissent interprets tears resulting "strong desire" 12. difficult enough speculate confidence this, emotions render join bit plausible think exhausting, soul-searching process led presented, deserved

Category: 0