Document: 546 U.S. 517 (2006) OREGON v. GUZEK No. 04-928. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 7, 2005. Decided February 22, 2006. *518 Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General Oregon, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on briefs were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Peter Shepherd, Deputy General. *519 Kannon K. Shanmugam States as amicus curiae in support him brief Clement, Acting Assistant Richter, Dreeben, Robert J. Erickson. Richard L. Wolf, by appointment Court, 974, respondent. was Kevin Hunt.[*] JUSTICE BREYER delivered opinion Court. Respondent Randy Lee Guzek found guilty capital murder sentenced to death. On appeal, Oregon affirmed conviction but vacated sentence ordered a new sentencing proceeding. The question before is whether State may limit innocence-related evidence he can introduce at that proceeding introduced his original trial. We hold limitation does not violate Constitution. I tried offense murder. showed two associates decided burglarize Houser family home, they entered house, an associate killed Rod Houser, then robbed Lois Houser. After police *520 learned held special grudge against Housers, traced associates. confessed. And testified trial, painting ringleader. Guzek's defense rested part upon alibi. He presented alibi witnesses, grandfather mother, who had been with one or other time crime. jury disbelieved alibi, it convicted Guzek, appealed; conviction; court again death; resentencing. death third time; yet procedures faulty. 336 Ore. 424, 86 P.3d 1106 (2004). Seeking avoid further errors next (the fourth) proceeding, also addressed admissibility certain seeks including live testimony from mother about Eighth Fourteenth Amendments provide federal constitutional right this upcoming At Oregon's request, we agreed review determination. II Before turning merits claim, consider motion made, asking us dismiss writ certiorari improvidently granted. rests claim that, irrespective law, state law gives mother's testimonythe additional here issue. See Rev. Stat. § 138.012(2)(b) (2003). For reason, says, lacks jurisdiction hear or, least, there no good practical reason decide *521 cannot agree, however, lack case. possess state-court determinations rest law. 28 U.S.C. 1257(a). based its legal conclusion relevant pointed out permits introduction (at hearing) "`evidence . [the] mitigating [w]hether defendant should receive sentence.'" App. Pet. Cert. 45 (quoting §§ 163.150(1)(a), (b) (2003); emphasis added deleted). But immediately law's words "relevant evidence" refer (in present context) only Federal Constitution grants present. 45-52. went discuss Court's statements effect "`require sentencer be precluded considering, factor any circumstances proffers basis less than death.'" Id., 54 Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 604 (1978) (plurality opinion); deleted); cf. 56 (recognizing aspect adopted majority Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 110 (1982)). interpreted holding Green Georgia, 442 95 (1979) (per curiam), including, within requirement, which, like proffered testimony, tends show did commit crime which has convicted. Thus, demanded "admissibility" solely reason. jurisdiction. See, e. g., South Dakota Neville, 459 553, 556, n. 5 (1983); Delaware Prouse, 440 648, 651-653 (1979). *522 Neither are persuaded argument case because holding, witnesses guilt phase; such witness (a fact, overlooked). points capital-case resentencing statute "[a] transcript all exhibits properly admitted prior trial admissible proceeding." provision adds "[e]ither party recall evidence." Ibid. do doubt these provisions give state-law guilt-phase testimony. 43 (authorizing grandfather's testimony). wishes more evidence; call stand elicit Tr. Oral Arg. 37-39, 41, 55-56. quoted above expressly say so. It "recall witness" first "present (Emphasis added.) "relevant"? thought so, insists relevance. suggests absence compulsion, would fall scope statutory word "relevant." supra, 521. most, shown might, does, independently *523 evidence. have made clear "a possible adequate independent ground" decision "bar [our] reaching questions" where, here, "State quite clearly [decision] Constitution." California Ramos, 463 992, 997, 7 see City Revere Massachusetts Gen. Hospital, 239, 242 Air Lines, Inc. Mahin, 410 623, 630-631 (1973). consequently deny writ. III As our discussion Part II, makes clear, narrow one. Do grant kind introduce, namely, shows scene That inconsistent conviction. sheds light manner committed Nor contends unavailable And, extent time, free now, albeit form. find nothing provides sentencing. agree previous cases Amendment broad enough encompass In plurality acting concert others rob kill could stage she played minor role crime, indeed, remained outside shop (where killing took place) A wrote *524 "the require factor, defendant's character record death." (emphasis statement. McCleskey Kemp, 481 279, 306 (1987); Bell 637, 642 opinion). issue traditional sentence-related evidence, tended how, whether, directly jury's finding guilt. latter distinctionthe fact "alibi with," rather "consistent with[,] underlying convictions"did matter. 58. said "factual distinction consequence Georgia." Green, focused murder, sought statement confederate confederate) alone (i. e., without defendant). opposed use hearing ground defendant, hearsay. per curiam opinion, noted used confession confederate's referred earlier prohibits "`mechanistically'" applying hearsay rule "`to defeat ends justice,'" prohibited barring confession. U.S., 97 Chambers Mississippi, 284, 302 (1973)). problem, implicitly assumed *525 blocked admission event, subsequent Franklin Lynaugh, 487 164 (1988), contrary understanding, providing designed cast "residual doubt" basic "quite doubtful" existed. 173, 6. Members "[o]ur cases" "right reconsideration body lingering doubts guilt." 187 (O'Connor, J., concurring judgment). Penry 492 302, 320 (1989) (characterizing "agreed `residual doubt' Franklin's constitutionally mandated factor" (brackets omitted)). resolve affords defendants right, scheme "even if existed." 174. matter make erred interpreting residual case, once face situation where need exists, for, even extend so far Alabama Federation Labor McAdory, 325 450, 461-462 (1945). "`reliability determination appropriate punishment specific case.'" Penry, 328 Woodson North Carolina, 428 280, 305 (1976) *526 opinion)). able "to "character offense." 327-328. deprive authority set reasonable limits submit, control submitted. Rather, "States structure shape consideration `in effort achieve rational equitable administration penalty.'" Boyde California, 494 370, 377 (1990) Franklin, 181 opinion)); see, Johnson Texas, 509 350, 362 (1993); Brown, 479 538, 543 (1987). Three circumstances, taken together, convince possesses regulate, through exclusion, First, traditionally concerns Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 1A1.1, editorial note, 4(a), p. 4 (Nov. 2004). herealibi evidenceconcerns Second, parties previously litigated relevantwhether thereby attacks determined principle, typically discourages collateral kind. Cf. Allen McCurry, 449 90, 94 (1980) ("As courts often recognized, res judicata estoppel relieve cost vexation multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, preventing decisions, encourage reliance adjudication"). Third, negative impact restricting ability minimized *527 innocence regardless. transcripts claimed guarantee presentation (albeit transcripts) well. legitimacy management evidentiary considerations, along minimal adverse restriction convinces protect here. conclude wrong contrary. IV mandate entitled impeach associates, whose government intends address issue; nor believe fairly encompassed presented. remand V reasons, vacate judgment proceedings opinion. ordered. ALITO *528 SCALIA, whom THOMAS joins, judgment. opportunity put rest, all, mistaken notion requires given opportunity, hearing, concerning Although correctly holds violation follow logic natural reject residual-doubt claims. exercise What me withhold agreement last "[t]hree circumstances" relies, ante, 526 trial." Ante, 526-527 original). sufficient dispose guarantees second sentencing, litigate innocence. "circumstance" analytical misfit company two. twothat "sentencing crime," 526, relevant," ibid.show compelling improper unnecessary hearing. third, contrast, remand. former not. If needed justify better candidate finds *529 Nation's history traditions. 1986, Justice Marshall observed "few times power facing possibility argue chance might innocent." Lockhart McCree, 476 162, 205 (dissenting Nothing changed score 20 years. contrary, four "prior decisions fail recognize considered factor," id., 174 They were, moreover, purported existed, "arguably common practice allowing penalty-only trials sentencebut convictionis struck down appeal." Two rejected outright. lower unanimously denied claims today. Zeigler Crosby, 345 F.3d 1300, 1310 (CA11 2003); Evans Thompson, 881 F.2d 117, 121 (CA4 1989); Duest State, 855 So. 2d 33, 40-41 (Fla. Commonwealth Fisher, 572 Pa. 105, 115-116, 813 A.2d 761, 767 (2002); People Emerson, 189 Ill. 436, 501-504, 727 N.E.2d 338-339 (2000); Fletcher, 354 N. C. 455, 470-472, 555 S.E.2d 534, 544 (2001); Melson 775 857, 898-899 (Ala. Crim. 1999). apparent scrap view came cryptic principally relied. 58-62. chief virtue today's lies discarding 524-525. *530 mentioning, superfluous circumstance happens some relates innocence, risks creating none exist. Capital now tempted amount carried over phase their hearings insufficient satisfy factor. Every "residual-doubt" will meritless factors. perfectly NOTES [*] amici urging reversal filed et al. Troy King, Alabama, Newsom, Christopher Morano, Chief State's Connecticut, Attorneys respective follows: Terry Goddard Arizona, John W. Suthers Colorado, M. Jane Brady Delaware, Charles Crist, Jr., Florida, Lawrence G. Wasden Idaho, Phill Kline Kansas, Jim Hood Jeremiah (Jay) Nixon Missouri, Mike McGrath Montana, Brian Sandoval Nevada, Petro Thomas Corbett, Pennsylvania, E. Long Dakota, Greg Abbott Mark Shurtleff Utah, Judith Williams Jagdmann Virginia, Rob McKenna Washington.

Category: 0