Opinion ID: 2606
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: prosecutor's statements regarding consideration of mitigating factors

Text: Fell next contends that he was denied a fair sentencing hearing because the prosecutor erroneously argued that the jury could not consider mitigating evidence that was unrelated to the crimes for which he had been found guilty. During summation, the prosecutor made the following arguments: [Y]ou should consider, one, [w]hat do these factors have to do with the crimes in this case? And do these factors actually lessen the defendant's responsibility and culpability for these crimes? ... [E]ven if you find evidence of some of those mitigating factors, we submit to you that the weight of these factors is not that heavy, and you need not give them much, if any, weight based upon those two questions ... ... you have heard so much about the defendant's childhood, so much about his background, and again, let me just remind you, the question is, we submit to you, what's the connection between his background and childhood and these crimes? What about his background and childhood makes him less responsible, less culpable? What about them means that he should receive a less  a lesser sentence? The question is, what does that sexual assault when he was four or five have to do with the crimes in this case? Sixteen years later, there's nothing sexual about these crimes. There's nothing about that background and that history that shows you that he is less responsible for the decisions that he made, decisions like killing a witness. How does that have to do with what happened to him, which was terrible? What's the evidence of the mitigating factors? To the extent you find some, there are not that many, respectfully, and they really don't relate to the crimes. Fell maintains that these closing comments, by suggesting that the relevance of his mitigating evidence depended on its connection with his crimes of conviction, violated the constitutional and statutory rule that before imposing the death penalty, a jury must be able to consider and give effect to a defendant's mitigating evidence.... Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 797, 121 S.Ct. 1910, 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001) (requiring that a jury be able to consider and give effect to a defendant's mitigating evidence in imposing [its] sentence....); accord Lockett, 438 U.S. at 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954. A capital defendant's mitigating evidence need not have a nexus to the murder for which he has been convicted, but need only allow the sentencer to reasonably find that it warrants a sentence less than death. Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 285, 124 S.Ct. 2562, 159 L.Ed.2d 384 (2004); FDPA § 3592(a)(8) (defining mitigating evidence as factors in the defendant's background, record, or character or any other circumstance of the offense that mitigate against imposition of the death sentence); FDPA § 3593(c) (providing that [a]t the sentencing hearing, information may be presented as to any matter relevant to the sentence, including any mitigating or aggravating factor permitted or required to be considered under section 3592). Following the jury's recommendation of a death sentence, Fell moved for a new trial based on his claim of improper statements by the government. The district court denied the motion, holding that  in the context of the entire proceeding and specifically, in light of its instructions to the jury  Fell had not been denied due process. [14] Reviewing for plain error, we agree that there was no reasonable likelihood that the jurors believed themselves to be precluded from considering Fell's mitigating evidence unless it related to his charged crimes. See Ayers v. Belmontes, 549 U.S. 7, 127 S.Ct. 469, 480, 166 L.Ed.2d 334 (2006); McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 442, 110 S.Ct. 1227, 108 L.Ed.2d 369 (1990). In its charge to the jury, the district court defined mitigating factors as those relating to Fell's childhood and background and instructed the jury to consider all aggravating and mitigating factors in rendering its decision. Specifically, the court instructed that: [a] mitigating factor is not offered to justify or excuse a defendant's conduct. A mitigating factor is simply an extenuating fact about a defendant's life or character, or about the circumstances surrounding the murder, or anything else relevant that would suggest that a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release is more appropriate punishment than a sentence of death. The court listed the mitigating factors that Fell had presented and told the jury that they could consider any additional mitigating factors that had not been specifically raised by Fell's counsel. The court also instructed the jurors that the arguments of counsel were not evidence and that if any conflicted with the court's instructions, the latter controlled. Specifically, the jurors were told that mitigating and aggravating factors have to do with the circumstances of the crime, or the personal traits, character, or background of the defendant, or anything else relevant to the sentencing decision. Moreover, the court's instructions, as a whole, made it clear that the jury was to take a broad view of mitigating evidence. Ayers, 127 S.Ct. at 478. In light of these thorough instructions, as well as the amount of time and attention devoted to Fell's early life experiences by both parties and the fact that the prosecutor's comments formed a very brief part of his summation and were not repeated during his rebuttal, it is extremely unlikely that the jury felt constrained in its consideration of Fell's mitigating evidence. See Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 384, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990) ([A]rguments of counsel generally carry less weight with a jury than do instructions from the court. The former are usually billed in advance to the jury as matters of argument, not evidence, and are likely viewed as the statements of advocates; the latter, we have often recognized, are viewed as definitive and binding statements of the law. (internal citation omitted)); cf. Brown v. Payton, 544 U.S. 133, 146, 125 S.Ct. 1432, 161 L.Ed.2d 334 (2005) (The judge is, after all, the one responsible for instructing the jury on the law, a responsibility that may not be abdicated to counsel.). Indeed, the verdict form bears out this conclusion. The jury unanimously found eight background mitigating factors, including that Fell was sexually and physically abused as a child, that he was treated and institutionalized on several occasions due to mental health problems and that his parents were violent alcoholics who abandoned him. Significantly, ten individual jurors found additional mitigating factors not expressly provided by the defense: total life experience, failure of the state['s] ... social and mental health services to effectively intervene in his childhood abuse and to treat or address his early antisocial behavior. No juror could have reached such conclusions while believing that to qualify as a mitigating factor, that factor need have a nexus to the crime.