Document: 472 U.S. 320 105 S.Ct. 2633 86 L.Ed.2d 231 Bobby CALDWELL, Petitionerv.MISSISSIPPI. No. 83-6607. Argued Feb. 25, 1985. Decided June 11, Syllabus In a bifurcated proceeding conducted pursuant to Mississippi's capital punishment statute, petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced death. Petitioner's lawyers in their closing argument at the sentencing stage, referred petitioner's youth, family background, poverty, as well general character evidence, they asked jury show mercy, emphasizing that should confront gravity responsibility calling for another's response, prosecutor urged not view itself finally determining whether would die, because death sentence be reviewed correctness by Mississippi Supreme Court. That court unanimously affirmed conviction but an equally divided court, rejecting, reliance on California v. Ramos, 463 992, 103 3446, 77 1171 contention prosecutor's comments violated Eighth Amendment. Held: The is vacated. 443 So.2d 806 (Miss.1983), reversed part remanded. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court with respect all Part IV-A, concluding that: 1 1. Where examination decision below issue does indicate it rested adequate independent state grounds, namely, failure comply procedural rule raising appeal, this lack jurisdiction decide issue. Pp. 326-328. 2 2. It constitutionally impermissible rest determination made sentencer who has been led believe, case, appropriateness defendant's rests elsewhere. Belief truth assumption sentencers treat power determine "awesome responsibility" allowed discretion consistent indispensable Amendment's "need reliability appropriate specific case." Woodson North Carolina, 428 280, 305, 96 2978, 2991, 49 944 (plurality opinion). 328-330. 3 3. There are several reasons fear substantial unreliability bias favor sentences when there state-induced suggestions may shift its sense appellate court. 330-334. 4 (a) "delegation" here encouraged simply postpone right fair his death; rather, deprive him right, unlike jury, ill-suited evaluate first instance. 330-331. 5 (b) Even unconvinced punishment, might nevertheless wish "send message" extreme disapproval acts. This desire make very receptive assurance can err error corrected appeal. A defendant then executed, although no had ever determined sentence. 331-332. 6 (c) If understands only sentence, life will reviewed, also understand any "delegate" effectuated returning presents specter imposition based irrelevant factor create danger being executed without punishment. P. 332. 7 (d) uncorrected suggestion jury's ultimate others choose minimize importance role, especially where, here, told alternative decisionmaker State's highest 332-333. 8 4. As "invited" response defense counsel's argument, thus unreasonable, neither State nor explains how less likely have distorted deliberations anything counsel said. 336-337. 9 5. Donnelly DeChristoforo, 416 637, 94 1868, 40 431, preclude finding constitutional sort impropriety contains. Although case warned against holding every improper unfair federal violation, did insulate prosecutorial from objections. 337-340. 10 MARSHALL, joined BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, supra, authority States free expose juries information concerning postsentencing procedures. Court, upholding statutory requirement instructed Governor could commute possibility parole into lesser instruction both accurate relevant legitimate penological interest. contrast, such interest, misleading linked valid consideration. 335-336. 11 O'CONNOR, remarks were inaccurate manner diminished responsibility, concluded sanction picture role suggest Constitution prohibits giving nonmisleading instructions regarding 341-342. 12 E. Thomas Boyle, Stony Brook, N.Y., petitioner. 13 William S. Boyd, III, Jackson, Miss., respondent. 14 except IV-A. 15 believe which later reviews case. We granted certiorari, 469 879, 243, 83 182 (1984), consider rendered inconsistent heightened (1976) Agreeing contention, we vacate sentence.1 16 * Petitioner shot killed owner small grocery store course robbing it. 17 mitigation, put evidence evidence. arguments mercy. large pleas death, even context proceeding. 18 "[E]very precious long there's soul person, hope. hope, one thing final. So I implore you think deeply about matter. or death—the you're going make, exercise your prerogative spare Caldwell. . I'm sure [the is] say Caldwell merciful unto he human being. hands. You give It's decision. don't know what else live society where taught eye solution. judges fate. awesome know—an responsibility." App. 18-19. 19 sought role. Indeed, forcefully argued done something wholly illegitimate trying force feel objection, trial court's ruling follows: 20 "ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Ladies gentlemen, intend brief. complete disagreement approach taken. it's fair. unfair. better. Now, kill man know—they final My God, be? Your job reviewable. They Yet 21 "COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT: Honor, object statement. out order. 22 throughout said panel man. that's terribly 23 "THE COURT: Alright, go full expression so Jury confused. proper realizes reviewable automatically penalty commands. now needed 24 Throughout remarks, attempted opposite, sparing truth. 'Thou shalt kill.' applies him, you, insinuating they're gonna take front Courthouse moments string up terribly, For know, Judge Baker render Automatically, mind telling them so." Id., 21-22. 25 On review, 4-4 validity thereby affirming (1983). Relying Court's (1983), prevailing flatly rejected constitute violation Amendment: "By [Ramos' ] reasoning, states mention jurors matter review." So.2d, 806. dissent dispute argue law sufficiently require 815 (Lee, J., dissenting). justices, however, found basis disturbing 806-807. argues below, Ramos control II 26 Respondent lacks grounds. See Herb Pitcairn, 324 117, 65 459, 89 L.Ed. 789 (1945). interposed contemporaneous objection initially assign Under rules, "[n]o distinctly assigned shall counsel, upon request may, option, notice plain specified." Miss.Sup.Ct.Rule 6(b) (1976). raised sua sponte. discussed oral postargument briefs submitted sides, state-law ground Rule 6. 27 mere existence bar jurisdiction; must actually relied disposition Ulster County Allen, 442 140, 152-154, 99 2213, 2222-2223, 60 777 (1979). Moreover, assume state-court grounds "state fairly appears primarily law, interwoven adequacy independence possible clear face opinion." Michigan Long, 1032, 1040-1041, 3469, 3476, 1201 "If indicates clearly expressly alternatively bona fide separate, adequate, we, course, undertake review decision." 1041, S.Ct., 3476. 28 An reveals contains express indication "separate, independent" judgment. reference waiver somewhat cryptic, position stated: 29 "Prueitt State, 261 119 (Miss.1972), dealt situation question assignment error. Writing Jones 'We do deem these matters [those assigned] .' Bell 360 1206 (Miss.1978) analogous present errors 'not briefs. " 814. 30 Prueitt noncapital decided bar. But Bell, refused bar, own motion certain claims those merits, explicitly unmeritorious. 1215. Because described "analogous [it] briefs,' 814 (emphasis added), read meaning 31 conclusion substantially bolstered fact challenge some length, evaluating before rejecting behavior other cases, number times declined invoke bars. See, e.g., Williams 445 798, 810 (1984) (explicitly citing proposition "we cases relaxing our rules interests justice require"); Culberson 379 499, 506 (1979) (reaching merits "only case" failed follow requiring prior objections instructions). Given standards Long apparent jurisdiction. III A. 32 reaching conclude repeatedly under Amendment "the qualitative difference punishments requires correspondingly greater degree scrutiny determination." U.S., 998-999, 3452. Accordingly, many limits placed rooted concern process facilitate responsible reliable discretion. Eddings Oklahoma, 455 104, 102 869, 71 (1982); Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 98 2954, 57 973 (1978) opinion); Gardner Florida, 430 349, 97 1197, 51 393 (1977) (1976).2 33 various procedures developed jurisprudence taken given task serious die hands State. Thus, ago pre-Furman McGautha California, 402 183, 91 1454, 711 (1971), Harlan, writing upheld scheme spite scheme's premise, assumed, "that confronted truly decreeing fellow act due regard consequences ." 208, 1467. with—and indeed to—the 2991 supra; supra. B 34 35 (1) 36 Bias stems institutional do—limits often understand. rather Whatever intangibles determination, few gleaned record. inability examine individuality particularly devastating consideration termed "[those] compassionate mitigating factors stemming diverse frailties humankind." Woodson, 304, 2991. When held factors, Eddings, Lockett, envisioned occur among hear see witnesses. dissenters noted: 37 "The [mercy] plea directly impose mercy irrelevant. Therefore, mandated thought processes required find accused denied die." 817 Patterson, C.J., Prather Robertson, JJ., 38 limits, most courts determinations presumption correctness. Mississippi, pointed out: "Even novice attorney knows penalty, merely correctness." 816 Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-105 (Supp.1984) (defining scope sentencing). 39 (2) kind STEVENS noted another reason why intolerable toward sentence: more freely "err appeal." Maggio Williams, 464 46, 54-55, 104 311, 316, 78 43 (1983) (concurring judgment). 41 (3) 42 similarly stem correctly prison increased Arizona Rumsey, 467 203, 211, 2305, 2310, 81 164 (1984). chance least that, like reviewability avoid spectre concerns. emerge represent demonstrated death.3 absence (4) 44 prejudicial effect recognize offers frequently highly attractive. individuals unfamiliar called difficult uncomfortable choice. behalf community. partial guidance judgment exercised, leaving (1978); situation, easily imagine presence effectively used reluctant in. 45 problem decision-makers justices supreme certainly plausible tempted respected legal authorities having "right" important than jury. subject if returns invitation rely generate too great. C 46 is, therefore, surprising almost uniformly strongly condemned offered here. example, Courts since Furman Georgia, 408 238, 92 2726, 346 (1972).4 viewed courts, cases.5 American Bar Association, conduct, agrees judgment.6 And deciding Caldwell, adopted similar merit vacating Wiley 449 756 (1984); 798 IV 47 advances three despite comments. First, each extent proceedings. Second, defends "invited," reasonable arguments. Last, asserts application 431 (1974), precludes contain. None persuasive. 48 Both respondent interpreted broad Ramos. concerned constitutionality California's informed imprisonment included parole. requirement, interest—that interest future dangerousness return society. 1001-1006, 3453-3456. gave 50 cannot either inaccurate, nature depicted way fundamentally odds perform. Similarly, arguably available otherwise not. themselves taking preliminary step actual death—a eventually responsible. Creating image minds goal, contrary. never questioned indispensability "appreciat[e] choice moral reposed sentencers." 1011, 3458. next understood unreasonable context. 52 theory "context" embraced. commented two aspects defense's "during inaccurately convince meted remain remainder life. He left impression commutation sentence." "[defense had] emphasized pitch referring Ten Commandments, Jesus Heavenly Father." Ibid. 53 arguments, recalls stated describing 'life parole' parole." 1004-1005, n. 19, 3455, 19. misimpression underscored need Governor's sentences, rational link between nothing flow mentioned counsel. 54 connection references religious themes texts unclear. dissenting "Assuming accepting majority's invited error, invite Asking comment system review. true discusses Christian, Judean Buddhist philosophies, quotes Shakespeare refers heartache suffered accused's mother." 817. 55 seeks bolster arguing rarely considered violative rights. points stands "not infirmity direct appeal call supervisory powers denial process." Brief 25. warn reasons, different Donnelly. 56 first-degree responded hope verdict guilty saying "I quite frankly attorney] little murder." 640, 1870. DeChristoforo's objected judge curative instruction: 'Closing 58 'Now closing, District Attorney, statement: want verdict. guilty. whatsoever, disregard statement Attorney. 59 'Consider though made.' 641, Judicial Massachusetts "held mistrial further judge's 'was sufficient safeguard rights.' habeas relief, Appeals "examination entire proceedings" support "prosecutor's remark infected unfairness resulting 643, 1871. 61 Two Donnelly, distinguish Caldwell's Most important, observed whole trial, agreed improper, believed correctable through instruction, strong instruction. said: 62 "[T]he took special pains correct statements prosecutor, customary, previously specifically re-emphasized point. Then directed attention challenged declared unsupported, admonished ignore occurrences mitigate effect, hardly character." 644, 1872 (footnotes omitted). 63 openly them; necessary, implying portrayal correct. 64 "admittedly ambiguous one," id., 645, 1872, "in prejudiced privilege compulsory self-incrimination, amount right." 1871 (citing Griffin 380 609, 85 1229, 106 (1965)). Here, focused, unambiguous, strong. pointedly principal concern" "procedure imposes 999, 3451. procedure incompatible Such comments, uncorrected, affect fundamental fairness violate Amendment.7 V always premised decisions recognizes proceeds awareness "truly effort decision, meet standard requires. therefore sustains remanded 66 ordered. 67 POWELL 68 concurring 69 join exception write separately my views discussion imply 70 distinguishes Briggs observes "both society." Ante, 335. concludes, relevant. view, responsibility. agree "valid interest" imparting minimizes 336. seems generally characterize "wholly "States procedures" inaccurate. Certainly, sanctioned 1010, Federal 1004, 1012, 27, 3454, 3458, 27. 72 Jurors harbor misconceptions or, matter, override Should enhanced accurately instructing procedure, including limited foreclose policy education. 73 notes, accomplished opposite result. jurors, "your [y]our reviewable," creating mistaken automatic provide authoritative appropriate. fact, reviewing "presumption correctness" 806, overturned arbitrary "was overwhelming weight evidence," aggravating circumstances lacking "judge entered acquittal notwithstanding verdict." 811 (Miss.1984). 74 Laypersons expected appreciate explanation light reassuring "automatic" evoked 325-326. subsequent REHNQUIST dissent, post, 345-346, helped restore jurors' reverse disagreed ante, 340-341, 7. emphasis misinformed finality unacceptable risk [may been] arbitrarily capriciously," 3451, "whim mistake," 118, (1982) 75 REHNQUIST, whom Chief WHITE join, dissenting. 76 holds "constitutionally elsewhere." 328-329. abstract, properly applied justify overturning robbed bait shop owned Mr. Mrs. Faulkner. Faulkner screamed, her twice fled bank bag counter. After murder, proceeded phase. At point prosecution prove four facts offense committed while engaged robbery, felonies involving use threats violence person. With latter introduced 1975—twice armed once aggravated assault. mitigation testimony friends youth sound upbringing, indicating nice person hard worker. guilt phase "sole facts," duty accordance presented, apply charged found. Prior "must Defendant imprisonment." To circumstance, outweigh circumstances. 79 Counsel presented Pursuant spoke last; initial complain there. Defense spoke; indicates, consisted mostly rebuttal complains. mischaracterizes statements, worth noting again 80 "I'm reviewable." objected, continue after stating: confused." continued: 82 "[Defense counsel] insinuat[ed] Court." account stops went state: 84 "Now, thank yardstick follow. Thank set regulations football game. What oath, punishment? Number 1, facts. That's job. Not mine, theirs, Judge's, anybody's—yours. are. can't tell are, law—this here—the book, them, impartial passion, prejudice, sympathy." (Emphasis supplied.) recounted recent history country, explaining originally struck down statutes perception imposed arbitrarily. over arbitrariness "our Legislature undergoing now. imposed, Jury—the people—the people, Court—the heart system, determine—must determine—that circumstances, tend justified applied. So, evolved, Box why, totally hang black mask on. 87 supplies characterization argument. "a elsewhere," 329, "[t]he responsible." 333. builds supplying assumption—that lowered vote penalty. hypothesizes convinced assured "error" imposing comfortable "delegating" voting violates Amendment, unable individual firsthand, bound Finally, distinguishing concludes "fundamentally 'need case.' 340 (quoting opinion)). 88 claim during stressed constitutes 'failure observe essential concept justice.' 642, Lisenba 314 219, 236, 289, 166 (1941)). opinions recognizing "qualitative determination," satisfied ensure sentencer's "suitably capricious action." Zant Stephens, 462 862, 874, 2733, 2741, 235 (1983); Barclay 939, 950, 3418, 3425, 1134 invalid Zant, teach vacated flawed. ahead really matter—the "mistake" sentence—and afforded comport norm related fairness. sweeping fell far short Admittedly, early indicated "final" entirety, cf. Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 396, 368 (1973), evident thrust solely addition allow "fair verdict," "without 90 wrong urging emotion Despite rhetorical "reliable" comprehend responsibility," emotions play much eliminating decisions. Here prospect lead lean followed portion lost themselves. charge highlighted factfinders conclusions. charge, impassioned petitioner, mother, rebuttal. group subjected mean group's sideshow—a "preliminary step" determination. Once recognized overstated seriousness analysis tumbles house cards. unlikely diminished, respond conjecture "delegated" erring assuming infirm, heed directives Barclay, hold During heated prosecutors stray debating relevancy, inquiry proceedings altered calls careful applicable principles, me essentially same convict mistakes Cf. 334, 5, cited therein. 93 unconvincing scramble identify citations yielded plurality opinions, forms individualized highlight path takes. Nor illuminating citation dicta designed prevent strays optimum ipso facto unreliable. much. prohibit communication availability statute Governor. noted, inter alia, "merely potential alternative," 1009, 3457, informing inject speculative deliberations. bore marginal relevance distinguishable ground; received "relevant." event, common knowledge, event judicial entitled know. "misrepresented" process. misrepresentations process, Miller Pate, 386 785, 690 (1967); Brady Maryland, 373 83, 1194, 215 (1963), include de novo, implication along lines cured scheme. 95 turning perceived departure conceives reversal. proved crimes threat charged; outweighed singular duty. record returned adduced, conclusion. provision overturned.* affirm raises conviction, refusal appoint experts investigators assist him. provides mechanism appointment expert assistance, psychiatric assistance expense. requested criminal investigator, fingerprint expert, ballistics requests denied. denials accompanied showing reasonableness. 'would great necessarius witness.' 812 undeveloped assertions beneficial, deprivation Ake 470 68, 82-83, 1087, 1096-1097, (1985) (discussing entitle law). type sought. Barefoot Estelle, 880, 924, 3383, 3406, 1090 (BLACKMUN, dissenting) (Woodson assuring "is firmly established jurisprudence"); 878 (O'CONNOR, concurring) ("[T]his gone extraordinary measures prisoner guarantee, humanly possible, whim, mistake"); Godfrey 446 420, 443, 100 1759, 1772, 398 (1980) (BURGER, ("[I]n meticulous care"). note "[i]f findings sentence" imprisonment. 99-19-101(3)(c) (Supp.1984). cannot, within time, punishment" 99-19-103. Hawes 240 Ga. 327, 333, S.E.2d 833, 839 (setting aside argument); Fleming 142, 146, 37, instruction); Willie, 410 1019, 1034-1035 (La.1982) (use setting improprieties); Jones, 296 N.C. 495, 498-499, 251 425, 427 (ordering new objection); White, 286 395, 404-405, 211 445, 450 (1975) Gilbert, 273 S.C. 690, 696-698, 258 890, 894 raise appeal). People Morse, Cal.2d 631, 649-653, Cal.Rptr. 201, 212-215, 388 P.2d 33, 44-47 (1964); Pait 112 380, 383-384 (Fla.1959); Blackwell Fla. 124, So. 731, 735-736 (1918); Johnson, 284 N.Y. 182, N.E.2d 465 (1940); Beard Ala.App. 102, 333 (1923). Annot., Prejudicial Effect Statement Prosecutor Makes Mistake Convicting Can Be Corrected Other Authorities, A.L.R.3d 1448 (1965); 974 (1966). ABA Standards Criminal 3-5.8 (2d ed. 1980) ("References likelihood authorities, governor erroneous efforts shirk decision"). 3.90. "corrected" judge. disagree. dissent's played Post, 348. leave play, retract, undermine, previous insistence assure discussed, crucial sphere comes near "solely defendant's] sentence," ibid., makes subjective, "unique, particular deserves." 900, 2755, (REHNQUIST, beyond performing correctness, relatively incapable "literally countless [a sentencer] consider[s,]" 901, making largely desert. error—a endorsed judge—was corrected. notes reversible draconic intervention name appear ideal us. Doctrinal development tradition commend reason, ultimately bids remedy minor departures norms involved

Category: 0