Opinion ID: 1768472
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Excessiveness Argument

Text: Defendant argues counsel ineffectively argued his case to the jury. Defense counsel began her opening statement by noting the jurors would hear important new evidence: Defendant already had a death sentence. Counsel concluded by saying: ladies and gentlemen, as ironic as you may think it seems, I'm going to come back and I'm going to ask you to spare the life of this man who's already on death row. In closing argument, defense counsel began: Never have had to ask a jury to spare the life of a man who's already on death row. That's exactly what I'm asking you to do. And it might be said why? Why does it matter? And it might be said why weren't we told about this when we all came together on Monday? When it might be said that, you know, any decision you make here is going to be kind of scratched off the list by what's already gone before you as jurors. And I'd like to talk to you about that. Defense counsel then argued that sentencing defendant to death was wrong for various reasons, including excessiveness: The fact of the matter is John Middleton can only be killed once. And he's already under a sentence of death. ... Three sentences of death is excessive. Three sentences of death is wrong. ... He's already a condemned man and you're being asked to condemn him again and again. And that's excessive. And it's wrong. ... We're asking you to impose no additional death sentences. Additional sentences of death, it's such a waste. And to sentence a man to death three times, I will make this argument to you, it shows the same disregard for the sanctity of all human life that they claim. ... Asking for a man to be condemned again and again and again shows disregard for the sanctity of all human life that they are claiming John showed for Al, for Randy and for Stacey. ... You're never required to sentence someone to death. Never. And the jury instruction tells you that. Three sentences of death is excessive. He's a condemned man, ladies and gentlemen. You don't need to condemn him any further. As it is, he never gets out. ... Ladies and gentlemen, that's evidence to support a sentence of life no matter how ironic it sounds to you, he's still a man who is loved. He's still a man who has some value. He's adjusted well to the prison in which he's going to spend the rest of his days, however limited they are. And you don't have to take any further steps to condemn this man, ladies and gentlemen. Questioned about her strategy, counsel testified that she thought about it a lot. She found it ironic that a person could receive multiple death sentences. She tried to convey that repeated death sentences serve no function, because defendant can only be killed once. Excessiveness was one of her themes. Defendant claims that the excessiveness argument asked the jury to spare defendant regardless of the law. He believes this constitutes ineffectiveness. See Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742, 750 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 907, 118 S.Ct. 264, 139 L.Ed.2d 190 (1997). In Hall, counsel's penalty-phase argument attacked the death penalty generally, with few references to the facts of the case. Id. The court concluded the argument was unreasonable, given its total lack of focus on Hall's individual character and record and its reliance on irrelevant religious claims. Id. This case is not like Hall. Here, counsel adapted the excessiveness argument to particular facts. Counsel worried that the jurors would think their penalty decision was immaterial. Therefore, she addressed the irony of assessing multiple death sentences. She argued that additional death penalties serve no purpose. The jurors would be showing only that defendant's life was worthless to them. In her words, it was excessive. In addition to excessiveness, defense counsel offered other reasons not to impose additional death sentences. She invoked mercy, weaknesses in the State's evidence, and the effect of drugs on defendant and communities generally. Counsel reasonably challenged the excessiveness of additional death penalties. She was not ineffective.