Document: 513 U.S. 504115 S.Ct. 1031130 L.Ed.2d 1004 Louise HARRIS, Petitioner,v.ALABAMA. No. 93-7659. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Dec. 5, 1994. Decided Feb. 22, 1995. Syllabus * Alabama law vests capital sentencing authority in trial judge, but requires judge to "consider" an advisory jury verdict. After convicting petitioner Harris murder, recommended that she be imprisoned for life without parole, sentenced her death upon concluding statutory aggravating circumstance found and considered outweighed all mitigating circumstances. The Criminal Appeals affirmed conviction sentence, rejecting Harris' argument statute is unconstitutional because it does not specify weight must give jury's recommendation thus permits arbitrary imposition penalty. affirmed. Held: Eighth Amendment require State define Pp. __. (a) Because Constitution acting alone, impose a see, e.g., Spaziano v. Florida, 468 447, 465, 104 3154, 3165, 82 340, offended when further consider trusts proper weight. Alabama's scheme much like Florida's, except Florida required recommendations "great weight," see Tedder State, 322 So.2d 908, 910 (Fla.), while not. Although this has spoken favorably so-called standard, Spaziano, supra, at S.Ct., also made clear hallmark analysis particular chooses place advice, whether adequately channels sentencer's discretion so as prevent results, ibid. To standard here would offend established principles governing criteria by sentencer, Franklin Lynaugh, 487 164, 179, 108 2320, 2330, 101 155 within constitutional ambit micromanagement tasks properly rest State's administer its criminal justice system. (b) arguments requiring weight" given advice are unpersuasive. First, cases reversing sentences prejudicial errors committed before do demonstrate role fact determinative, simply sentence imposed invalid if on which partially rests was rendered erroneously. Second, although statistics there have been only 5 rejected verdict death, compared 47 instances where over life, these numbers tell whole story they indicate, example, how many adopted ended differently had advice. Moreover, say little about constitutional, question turns solely numerical tabulations sentences, rather penalties product guided whim. Finally, apparent disparities verdicts specific indicate judges divergent understandings requirement such considered; reflect that, subjective weighing process, emphasis each decisional criterion necessity vary account circumstances case. In any event, show affect 632 543 (Ala.1993), O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion. Ruth Friedman, Montgomery, AL, petitioner. P. David Bjurberg, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 We granted certiorari petitioner's 2 A defendant convicted murder entitled hearing jury, Ala.Code § 13A-5-46 (1994), unless participation waived both parties approved court, 13A-5-44. prove factors beyond reasonable doubt disprove, preponderance evidence, may proffer. 13A-5-45(g). then renders If finds factors, any, outweigh circumstances, recommends death; otherwise, imprisonment parole. 13A-5-46(e). recommend 10 jurors agree, simple majority. 13A-5-46(f). vote tally reported judge. 3 available evidence file written statement detailing defendant's crime, listing imposing sentence. Code 13A-5-47(e) provides: 4 "In deciding court shall determine exist exist, doing contained verdict, pursuant Section 13A-5-46(a) or 13A-5-46(g). While concerning consideration, binding court." his automatically reviewed appellate and, affirmed, writ matter right. addition reviewing record errors, courts independently weigh penalty disproportionate comparable cases. 13A-5-53(b). 6 Petitioner married victim, deputy sheriff, having affair with Lorenzo McCarter. She asked McCarter find someone kill husband, end approached co-worker, who refused solicitation supervisor. willing accomplices Michael Sockwell Alex Hood, were paid $100 vague promise more money performance. On appointed night, husband left work nightshift, called beeper alert him. Hood sat car parked nearby street, hid bushes next stop sign. As victim stopped intersection, sprang forth shot him, point blank, shotgun. arrested after questioning, agreed bear witness conspiracy exchange prosecutor's seek testified him could share benefits, totaled $250,000. 7 murder. At hearing, number witnesses attested good background strong character. rearing seven children, held three jobs simultaneously, participated actively church. recommended, vote, finding existence one circumstance, pecuniary gain, mitigator, no prior record. nonstatutory hardworking, respected member church community. Noting planned crime financed commission stood benefit most from husband's concluded "the far outweighs non-statutory ought death." App. 7. separate proceedings, conspirators received prison terms parole; Sockwell, triggerman, recommendation, again imprisonment. 8 503 (1992). It noted based Florida's scheme, we 457-467, 3160-3166, 340 (1984); Proffitt 428 242, 252, 96 2960, 2966, 49 913 (1976) (joint Stewart, Powell, JJ.). One difference (Fla.1975), whereas Harris's contention constitutionally required, however. So.2d, 538. prescribes, weighed Finding Id., 542-543. discussing unrelated claim. (1993). certiorari. 512 ----, 114 2736, 129 858 (1994). II 9 Florida. Both process ultimate (1994); Fla.Stat. 921.141(3) (1985). subject automatic review. 13A-5-55 921.141(4) Alabama, propriety 13A-5-53(b)(2) Harvard 375 833 (Fla.1977), cert. denied, 441 956, 99 2185, 60 1060 (1979), decide excessive similar cases, 13A-5-53(b)(3) Williams 437 133 (Fla.1983), 466 909, 1690, 80 164 (1984). two differ important respect. opined override facts suggesting [are] convincing virtually person differ." 910. same deference inures death. See Grossman 525 833, 839, n. (Fla.1988) (collecting cases). statute, contrast, read into statute. Ex Parte Jones, 456 380, 382-383 (Ala.1984). This distinction between schemes forms controversy case—whether ascribe jury. 11 constitutional. (1976); addressed could, consistent Constitution, vest relegate role. acknowledging power resides States, "Eighth violated every time reaches conclusion different majority sisters best laws." 464, 3164. therefore "placing responsibility case fundamentally odds contemporary standards fairness decency alter final make life-or-death decision." 3165; Walton Arizona, 497 639, 648, 110 3047, 3054, 111 511 (1990); Clemons Mississippi, 494 738, 745, 1441, 1446, 725 (1990). 12 Asserting serves function "rehabilitation," "incapacitation," "deterren[ce]," STEVENS argues "should express conscience community cases." Post, __, __ (internal quotations omitted). What purpose served punishment should implement scheme—to extent those questions involve policy issues—are matters we, judges, jurisdiction. Our judicial review legitimately extends choices community, expressed through legislative enactments, comport Constitution. elsewhere, "while obligation insure bounds overreached, act might legislators." Gregg Georgia, 153, 174-175, 2909, 2925-2926, 859 JJ.) 13 various opinions accord under law. ex post facto challenge Dobbert 432 282, 294, 97 2290, 2298, 53 344 (1977), "crucial protection" provided fashion, dismissing Spaziano's wrongly applied lower case, stated: 14 "This already recognized significant safeguard affords 294-295[, 2298-2299, 344] (1977). Proffitt, U.S., 249[, 2965] opinion). satisfied takes seriously hesitated reverse derogates role." 3165. 15 These statements approbation, however, mean required. stated immediately following passage quoted above, "Our responsibility, second-guess accorded ensure result discriminatory." our praise notwithstanding, results. 252-253, 2966-2967 16 Consistent law, chosen guide decision choice. And objects neither vesting nor process. seeks instead mandate relying suggests 17 notion "a method balancing proceeding required." (1988). Equally settled corollary either aggravation mitigation, sentencer. See, Blystone Pennsylvania, 299, 306-307, 1078, 1083, 255 Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 113-115, 102 869, 876-877, 71 (1982); 257-258, 2969 here, hold 18 than enjoys key role, For support, points parte Williams, 556 744, 745 (Ala.1987). Unless played goes argument, reversal warranted exposed harmful error. flaw long plays judge's decision, necessarily determinative one. defendant, plainly requires, follows Espinosa 505 112 2926, 120 854 (1992), presented factor. summarily reversed explaining "Florida essentially split two. Initially, weighs turn court's circumstances." 2928. Error considers factor judge: kind indirect creates potential arbitrariness direct factor, result, therefore, error." Ibid. (citation Such consequential error attaches whenever great 19 observed context permitting reject afford defendants second chance judge," Dobbert, 296, 2299. practice, yielded some ostensibly surprising statistics. According Prison Project, life. Statistics compiled Project (Nov. 29, 1994) (lodged Clerk Court). But story. know, instance, Without look minds decisionmakers, deceptively objective incomplete picture. Even assuming true view That tabulation actual hypothetical alternative, indeed effect drafters anticipated, unintended results consequence. An ineffectual legislature amend, us annul. 20 draws attention Alabama. did reason another wrote he Coral, CC-88-741 (Montgomery Cty., June 26, 1992), Sentencing Orders, p. 72 other commented variously "reasonable basis" so, Parker, CC-88-105 (Colbert 3, 1991) 408, "unquestionably bizarre result," Hays, 518 768, 777 (Ala.1986), "if imposed, scarcely imagined," Frazier, CC-85-3291 (Mobile July 31, 1990) 139. Juxtaposing statements, arbitrarily thereby abusing their discretion. 21 illustrate "considered" There expect will treated uniformly provides "shall defined mere tallying comparison," 13A-5-48 less what 258, disparate treatment reflects order 112, 875, (1982) ("[A] consistency produced ignoring individual differences false consistency"). bring equal protection claim, contest courts' proportionate sentiments render violative Amendment. 22 Accordingly, affirm judgment 23 ordered. 24 dissenting. 25 unique. unlike Union, unbridled death—even though determined inappropriate penalty, even basis exists believing reasonable, instructed I accepted reasoning 457-465, 3160-3164, (1984), not, id., 467, 3166 (STEVENS, concurring part part), conclude complete absence consideration Due Process Clause Fourteenth 26 repeatedly emphasized society impose.1 legislatures' assignments exemplify distinction. responsible noncapital opposite consensus, prevails 33 37 authorize punishment, participates decision. 29 final; four—Alabama, Delaware, Indiana—the Russell, Constitutionality Jury Override Death Penalty Cases, 46 Ala.L.Rev. 9-10 Thus, state legislatures enacted statutes responsibilities prevailing Federal Government cases.2 27 decisions England 1953 4-year study Royal Commission Capital Punishment: 28 "The grounds relieving prisoner liability quite serve shorter longer term imprisonment, involves deeper moral social issues. lesson history offence punishable practice juries confine issue guilt ignore entails. past, British juries, perverse petitions, least campaigns reformers conformity developing conceptions especially field punishment. well argued men women regarded microcosm changing attitudes infliction appropriate body fellow-citizen whom guilty suffer prescribed receive lesser punishment." Punishment 1949-1953, Report 200 (1953). ordinary, decisions, society's interests rehabilitating offender, incapacitating committing offenses future, deterring others offenses. rehabilitation role; incapacitation largely irrelevant, alternative possibility parole available;3 assumption greater deterrent unsupported persuasive evidence.4 Instead, interest identified principal justification retribution: "capital expression outrage particularly offensive conduct." 183, 2929, JJ.); Gillers, Deciding Who Dies, U.Pa.L.Rev. 1, 54-56 (1980). expresses community's sanction provide adequate response outrageous affront humanity. Gregg, 184, 2930. representative cross-section "express death" Witherspoon Illinois, 391 510, 519, 88 1770, 1775, 776 (1968) (footnote carries legitimacy fair careful free possible passion prejudice. public's zeal legislation authorizing cast citizens' capacity apply fairly, am convinced system reliable insulation against passions polity. Voting political candidate vows "tough crime" differs vastly voting condemn Jurors' terminate ends; answer own consciences; rarely concern reprisals done. More importantly, focus involving fate fellow citizen, generalized remedy global category faceless violent criminals who, abstract, appear unworthy collective fairly presume 30 permit innocence accused consent. reasons underlie prohibition decisions. Framers "knew experience necessary protect . too responsive voice higher authority." Duncan Louisiana, 145, 156, 1444, 1451, 491 (1968). explained Duncan: 31 "[T]he provisions Constitutions fundamental exercise official power—a reluctance entrust plenary powers liberty citizen group judges. Fear unchecked power, typical Governments respects, insistence determination innocence." 32 Community critical explicitly governed guarantee trial. "higher authority" present-day "too responsive" climate covet office—or merely wish remain —must constantly profess fealty penalty.5 face partisan election six years. 17-2-7 (1987). danger bend pressures pronouncing highly publicized confronted beholden King George III. my opinion, total reliance pronounce unacceptable. 708, 3086, (1990) dissenting). ameliorate concerns often makes worse, when, 34 expressly violate Constitution's command "be twice put jeopardy limb." Const., Amdt. V; cf. Bullington Missouri, 451 430, 444-46, 1852, 1860-1862, 68 270 (1981). practical effect. recognizes, ante, almost always adopt recommending prosecutor wins can confident loses gets second, fresh opportunity secure present exactly rejected. jeopardy, once repeat performance different, likely sympathetic, decisionmaker. assumed "provid[e] more, less, protection," 295, 2299, (1977),6 perversely devolved procedure stave off de novo hearings. 35 Not surprisingly, face, case,7 recent overrides confirms it. vetoed five condemned spared.8 acknowledges "ostensibly surprising" fact, dismisses inconclusive, "[w]e know advice." attempt shrug reality misses point. Perhaps severe, frequently inconsistent sense justice, all. frame reference jury; rather, judge—the maintained comparison, overridden nine juries' conclusive indeed. recommendations, sever "link values penal system." Witherspoon, 15, 15. They execution spare. 36 contrary countermand judgment: contempt judgment. Judicial undermine system's central tenet "sharing administration phase civic responsibility." Thiel Southern Pacific Co., 328 217, 227, 66 984, 989, 90 L.Ed. 1181 (1946) (Frankfurter, Overrides sacrifice verdicts, potentially cost. Whereas public presumes presumption attach lone government official's decree. Indeed, government-sanctioned executions judgments citizenry respect value human itself unwittingly increase tolerance killing.9 Brandeis reminded us, "government potent, omnipresent teacher. ill, teaches people example. Crime contagious." Olmstead 277 438, 485, 48 564, 575, 944 (1928) (dissenting consistently scrupulous regard application standards, teach aggravates very dangers intended deter. giving information Jacobs Scott, 115 711, 130 618 (1995) denial stay execution). Six days later, news described supporters' lack executing innocent people. "One [proponent punishment] likened childhood vaccine full knowledge child, somewhere, die adverse reaction." Verhovek, When Shows Its Darker Side, N.Y. Times (Jan. 8, 1995), sec. 4, 6. III 38 correctly regularity bar maintain strict regularize constrain today refuses holding "micro-management." Ante, mundane administrative detail. 39 stands alone among refusal judges' verdicts. upheld interpreted satisfy stringent prohibiting supporting "so (1975). satisfied, rationally Delaware Indiana requirements overrides. Pennell 604 A.2d 1368, 1377-1378 (Del.1992); Martinez-Chavez 534 N.E.2d 731, 735 (Ind.1989). 40 cited approval, constraint provision. 3164; 294-295, (1977); Today statements. Blackmun [Tedder ] role," added, notes, "[o]ur reads reading overly ambitious best. rule squarely process." declined upset "particular case" way announce reached abjured entirely; appears Tedder's evaluation Court's Blackmun's tenable, meant echo previous suggestions Tedder. 41 follow recognize imperative. explained, unfettered cannot taken represent fails constitutes cruel unusual Gregg. Remarkably, attempts bolster citing forgets precisely stake compelled compels Tedder: undistorted fate.10 Proper lead today. 42 reaching longstanding principle "must draw meaning evolving mark progress maturing society." Trop Dulles, 356 86, 101, 78 590, 598, 630 (1958). rejection (at time) three, "evolving standard" disfavoring 463-464, 3163-3164. Surely, standardless Union matter. Cf. Enmund 458 782, 789-793, 3368, 3372-3374, 73 1140 (1982). 43 casts cloud jurisprudence. credible outrage. execute woman spite legitimate mooring. rudder free-floating negate will, judgment, unfair respectfully dissent. syllabus prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 321, 337, 287, 50 499. Lankford Idaho, 500 110, 125, 1723, 1732, 173 (1991); 750, 1449, Booth Maryland, 482 496, 509, 12, 107 2529, 2536, 440 (1987); Solem Helm, 463 277, 289, 103 3001, 3009, 3011, 77 637 (1983); 797, 3376, Beck 447 625, 637-638, 100 2382, 2389-2390, 65 392 (1980); Gardner 430 349, 357-358, 1197, 1204, 51 393 (1977) (plurality Violent Control Law Enforcement Act 1994, Stat. 1796, 1966-1967. (1976), advanced rationale upholding 28, (opinion JJ.), plurality placed acceptable justification. California Ramos, 992, 1023, 9, 3446, 3465, 1171 (1983) (Marshall, 478-479, 3172, (1984) part); H. Zeisel, Limits 60-63 49-54 evident attacks candidates reservations challengers Senate seats elections routinely savaged incumbent opponents federal nominees perceived "soft" Lehigh & Phillips, Romney, Kennedy Air Another Round Attack Ads, Boston Globe (Oct. 1994), Metro/Region 21; Lesher, Huffington Attacks Rival Judges, L.A. (Sep. 30, A3; Political Notebook, Memphis Commercial Appeal 3B (Frist-Sasser race). Some Senators litmus test confirmation Lewis, G.O.P. Challenge Nominees Oppose Penalty, 1993), A26; Vick, Barkett's Foes Show Strength Defeat, St. Petersburg (Mar. 18, 5B. commentator written, "[m]ost experts systems agree deter crime. believes does, politicians switching positions accommodate view. democratic Wills, Read Polls, Heed America, 6, (magazine), 48. believed risk erroneous 252-53, 2966-2967, past defendants. Brief Respondent O.T.1976, 76-5306, ("It said new [override] reduces mercy. enhanced"). Data Juror Attitudes Towards 37-50 confirm tend recommendations. Between 1972 early 1992, 134 Radelet Mello, Death-to-Life Overrides: Saving Resources Fla.St.U.L.Rev. 195, 196 During period, overrode 210-211. Indiana, 1980 used eight four sentences. Memorandum Paula Sites, Legal Director, Public Defender Council, Library (Feb. extreme disparity attributable unique failure governs states. infra, Part Research actually level violence society. controlled, 56-year New York revealed average additional homicides occurred month execution. Bowers Pierce, Deterrence Brutalization: Is Effect Executions?, Delinquency 453 10-year Graves, Deterrent California, America 322, 327-331 (H. Bedau ed., 1967). Experienced prosecutors reality. Morgenthau, Prosecutors Won't Tell You, 7, A25 ("[B]y brutalizing dehumanizing effect, cause murders prevent."). unilateral decree surely magnifies consequences. illustration. announced pulled trigger. Nevertheless, executed manmToday Of course, correct reaffirm importance remedying juries. occasion jury-related degree apparently content error, tainted, mattered result.

Category: 0