Opinion ID: 453007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sexual Offenses

Text: 113 The majority also concludes, after some deliberation, that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the prosecutor's statements that Tucker had raped the victim and compelled her to perform oral sodomy before her murder. With this conclusion, too, I must disagree. When the body of the victim was found, it was sufficiently decomposed that it was impossible to tell if sexual contact of any type had taken place. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution consisted solely of the fact that the body had been found unclothed, that a Caucasian pubic hair had been found on or near Tucker's clothes, and that the victim was reported, in one confession, to have been on her knees at some time before she was killed. I have difficulty agreeing with the majority that these facts, in and of themselves, give rise to an inference that the victim was raped. None of Tucker's conflicting confessions suggested that a sexual assault of any type had taken place; and his explanation that he had removed the victim's clothes to destroy possible fingerprints was not unreasonable. Yet even if this evidence were to give rise to an inference of rape, it most clearly does not support an inference of oral sodomy; and I cannot agree with the majority that the prosecutor's statement concerning oral sodomy was not prejudicial. 114 The majority suggests that this statement did not prejudice the petitioner because, given the reasonable reference to rape, the issue of sexual assault was already before the jury. 762 F.2d at 1509. This application of the prejudice requirement, however, gives tacit approval to a lack of individuation in capital sentencing that the Constitution has been read to proscribe. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976). Because a petitioner may have committed a rape does not mean he should be sentenced under allegations that he also compelled oral sodomy. The latter charge, which is not based on the record, evokes a range of images and emotions in members of the jury which have no relation to the petitioner. Because it deprives him of individualized consideration, by making an unsupported charge which engenders strong emotional response, this comment cannot help but undermine the reliability of the proceeding.C. Parole and Jury Responsibility for Future Violence 115 The majority makes a similar error in considering the prosecutor's comments concerning future parole for petitioner and the jury's responsibility for his future violence. The majority states that these comments were improper because they were based on speculation rather than fact, and required the jury to assume responsibility for the future conduct of corrections personnel. But it refuses to find these statements prejudicial, as they probably added little to the future dangerousness arguments which were properly considered by the jury. 762 F.2d at 1509. The little to which the majority refers is, however, the difference between a presentation which excites only those emotions relevant to the acts or characteristics of the petitioner, and a presentation which appeals to an entire spectrum of emotions and fears which relate not to the petitioner but to the release of violent criminals in general. See Brooks v. Kemp, supra, 762 F.2d at 1424 (Johnson, J., dissenting). A jury distracted by fears of a speculative release in which it would have no part, and a speculative course of violence which might never occur, cannot give the petitioner before them the careful, individualized consideration the Constitution requires. 116 I cannot approve an argument which so clearly transgresses the constitutional bounds on capital sentencing. Nor can I join an opinion which uses the newly-established prejudice requirement to vitiate the long-standing constitutional mandate of individuation in sentencing. ON PETITION FOR REHEARING 117 Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RONEY, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HENDERSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.