Document: 464 U.S. 46 104 S.Ct. 311 78 L.Ed.2d 43 Ross MAGGIO, Wardenv.Robert Wayne WILLIAMS.No. A-301. Nov. 7, 1983. PER CURIAM. 1 On October 23, 1983, less than two days before Williams' scheduled execution, the Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit stayed execution "pending final action Supreme Court." Because we agree with applicant that stay was improvidently imposed, grant his motion to vacate and allow State reschedule execution. 2 * Williams sentenced death killing a security guard while robbing grocery store in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. His conviction sentence were affirmed by Louisiana Court. v. Williams, 383 So.2d 369 (1980). After denied petition certiorari, 449 1103, 101 899, 66 828 (1981), request rehearing, 450 971, 1493, 67 622 he unsuccessfully sought writ habeas corpus state courts. He then filed first application District Middle Louisiana, presenting same 13 issues had proved unavailing The held no hearing, but issued written opinion denying petition. Blackburn, 649 F.2d 1019, 1021-1026 (CA5 1981) (incorporating Court's decision). judgment panel Circuit, an order entered directing appeal be reheard en banc. banc rejected each many objections Maggio, 679 381 (1982) (en banc). June 27, again --- ---, 103 3553, 77 1399 rehearing on September 8, 38, ----. 3 renewing attempt win relief courts, second Court, raising claims previously been additional claims. detailed which it refused or believed contentions "frivolous without merit," also certificate probable cause, which, under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, is prerequisite appeal. granted cause nevertheless stay. court reviewed "expressly [found] merit." ---- at ----, No. 83-3647, slip op., 8 (Oct. 12, 1983). In light recent actions this however, concluded respect "proportionality" claim "a complete review law matter may anticipated. With person's life stake, must await further from Ibid. II 4 Just last Term, made clear would not automatically stays cases where corpus. Barefoot Estelle, 463 3383, 3395, 1090 (1983). A addressed Justice will only if there exists " 'a reasonable probability four members consider underlying issue sufficiently meritorious certiorari notation jurisdiction.' White Florida, 458 1, 73 1385 (POWELL, J., chambers) (quoting Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. Schulingkamp, 419 1301, 1305, 95 3, 42 17 (1974) chambers)). We perceive reason apply different standard determining whether pending disposition should continue effect. 5 grounds are amply evident opposition stay, voluminous filings lower opinions proceedings Appeals. None these warrant plenary consideration case. Accordingly, conclude apparently view possibility disagree its analysis constitutional raised vacated. 6 summarized briefly. argues, first, proportionality district-wide rather state-wide basis, such does adequately ensure has imposed rational nonarbitrary manner. Second, prosecutor's closing argument allegedly prejudiced jury against elicited decision based passion reason. Third, trial court's instruction lesser offenses, given despite absence evidence warranting instruction, claimed have violated rule established Hopper Evans, 456 605, 102 2049, 72 367 (1982), due process. Fourth, exclusion three veniremen who opposed penalty guilt-innocence phase trial, although proper Witherspoon Illinois, 391 510, 88 1770, 20 776 (1968), deprived representative fair cross-section community. 7 second, third, fourth little discussion. As corpus, challenged argument, either directly indirectly, proceeding. ultimately challenge, Justices indicated statements substantial question one constituted reversible error. ex rel. 396 1249 (1981). failure raise federal proceeding inexcusable, gave full Applying Donnelly DeChristoforo, 416 637, 94 1868, 40 431 (1974), examined length did render fundamentally unfair. offenses clearly law, record led fully justified charge. 9 challenge certain presented petitions following denial now recast as attack representativeness convicted him. Witherspoon, found extant insufficient demonstrate "the jurors capital punishment results unrepresentative guilt substantially increases risk conviction." U.S., 518, S.Ct., 1775. entitled hearing selection procedures followed here effects. But alleged excluded any broader basis authorized Witherspoon. characterized proffered neutral tentative fragmentary, cannot abused discretion refusing hold evidentiary issue. Further warranted. 10 issuance certiorari. carefully procedure "provides adequate safeguards freakish imposition punishment." F.2d, 395. This conclusion Appeals' reconsideration our were, course, aware time agreed decide some form comparative constitutionally required. See Pulley Harris, 460 1425, 787 11 Since agreeing Pulley, consistently challenges scheme identical Williams. Lindsey 261, (1983); James 263, Sonnier 26, denied, 36, Narcisse 202, Applicant asserts because another case, Baldwin 45, turned substantiality applicant's fact effectiveness counsel, similar those shall resolve set Term. Strickland Washington, 462 2451, 1332 United States Cronic, 459 1182, 430 12 notes, WHITE recently case Texas. Autry 24, Also, 31, declined Texas Criminal Appeals, like California wholly failed compare other determine disproportionate others. Under circumstances, Autry's until That here. Our prior ample do believe district-wide, state-wide, remains same. Nor convince courts might judicial district convicted. Indeed, every published affirming regardless conducted basis. see disturb judgment. Finally, shown, nor could he, crimes committing. III 14 careful upsetting meritless. arguments insubstantial, attempted relitigate more persuasive they when them. conclude, therefore, 15 STEVENS, concurring 16 my raises serious about propriety sentencing petitioner's trial. prosecutor minimize jury's responsibility imposing implying verdict merely threshold determination corrected appellate offender. I quote argument: "I want read you laws something [the defense] said, don't man death, kill man. You see, word verdict, but, far return it. enacted series statutes you. What happens that's up very exacting, complicated court, can imposed. states, 905.9, Review Appeal, excessive. rule, establish necessary satisfy criteria review. And, statute, enact See, necessarily, its's mandatory There's seven judges highest state. For upheld, them approve Well, what review? They excessive, determine. A. influence passion, prejudice arbitrary factors. If was, reverse sentence. Where considering both crime defendant. think defendant—if heinous enough statutory circumstances ought applied defendant, Whenever verbation transcript along required transferred everything went . And total investigation done defendant let your impose stand. make through right, wishes—I'm saying it's It denied. appealed all way 18 "But important, going mean? represent segment society, abiding people, families, working living, stores. You're people standards review, their give him penalty, correct not, see,—it use one." Tr. 290-292, 296 (emphasis supplied). 19 view, encouraged err side "send message" since error (while not). accurately described function "everything" occurred during finds aggravating factor supported defendant's improperly relied upon factors reaching verdict. James, 399, 405-406 (La.), cert. 369, 374 (La.1980), While limitation permissible context Louisiana's Zant Stephens, 2733, 235 (1983), state-law premises scheme, So.2d, 406, certainly limited prosecutor. opinion, prejudicial accused, appears misstated discount grave fate. never invite especially true stake. 21 Nevertheless, essence questioning competency counsel—who object made—the applying strict application. Sanders States, 373 15-17, 83 1068, 1077-78, 148 (1963). find justification earlier action. petitioner related ineffectiveness doubt deliberately chosen Rose Lundy, 455 509, 520-521, 1198, 1204-05, 71 379 (plurality opinion); Fay Noia, 372 391, 438-440, 822, 848-49, 837 (1963); Townsend Sain, 293, 317, 745, 759, 770 Moreover, competent counsel itself, thereby failing avail himself usual challenging type error, said 543, 1216 n. (STEVENS, dissenting). though misgivings, concur 22 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 23 Before application, Circuit.1 condemned, Robert relating undertaken sentence, deny approach displays unseemly unjustified eagerness proceed dissent. 24 Adhering cruel unusual prohibited Eighth Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg Georgia, 428 153, 227, 96 2909, 2950, 49 859 (1976) (BRENNAN, dissenting), 25 Even accepted prevailing concerning nature 26 November hear oral 82-1095, Constitution requires, jurisdiction proportional committed sentences received similarly charged defendants Specifically, questions (1) requires (2) so, assume particular focus, scope, procedural structure. maintains staying allowed stand Pulley. There simply defensible disagreeing 27 commonsense position rests several arguments. Initially, beyond dispute status currently unclear. undoubtedly why WHITE, just month, David (1983) (WHITE, chambers). infra, 62. Given uncertainty, seems grossly inappropriate take place condemned prisoner nonfrivolous least nonfrivolous, indeed substantial, First, contends process undertaking district- parish-wide 374-375 properly notes suggested carried out. e.g., 198, 204-206, 2937, 2939-40, (opinion STEWART, POWELL, JJ.) (approving Georgia examines 'in throughout state' "); id., 223, 2948 J.) (noting approval supreme vacates "whenever juries across rarely question").2 scope among uncertainty continuing validity presumably answered release belies boast civilized society.3 29 even single eventually pass muster, decisions randomly reviews scope. Moore, 432 209, 225-228 (La.1983) (limited comparison first-degree murder state-wide); Narcisse, 426 118, 138-139 (similar between districts customary one). adopt consistent cases, combined offer reasons approaches, suggests capricious Again, clarifies need for, potential of, startling place. 30 simple examination demonstrates inadequacy.4 April 1980, direct compared Nineteenth Judicial Parish East parish tried At time, prosecutions taken January 1976, relevant date rules begin comparison. Of prosecutions, resulted convictions murder. 11, death. Like actual killers taking perpetration armed robbery. conclusorily noted receiving imprisonment mitigating therefore distinguishable But, admitted, significant criminal affected drug-induced mental disturbance. Therefore, few arising district, situated 31 range cover primarily rural areas covers urban center New Orleans. Yet allowing limit today sanctions practice defendants, dependent solely tried. denounced. "A constant theme emphasis protections intended consistent, manner." Barclay 3418, 3429, 1134 concurring). Central system includes meaningful 2741, supra, 195, 2935, 2939-40. existence statute approved legislature, requiring uniform legal depending involved. 32 sum, constitutionality encompassed within Harris. severity irrevocability shocking follow normal procedures, left force timely filing 33 offers rationale departing sensible practice.5 Its troubling minimal associated effectively preempts (3) irrevocable result 34 Less weeks ago, 5, who, mere hours subject likely bearing prisoner's last-minute claim. then, Incredibly, utilized whereas present purposes, distinction difference. 57, impossible accorded satisfies requirements clarify. 35 answer including own habeas. denials, denials merits respective petitions. More none involve imminent contrast, fatal overhangs legitimacy affirmed.6 36 comfort that, course relief, abbreviated Although disproportionate, finding largely irrelevant regarding substitute familiar important nuances state's death-penalty jurisprudence. requested remedy remand benefit how conducted. hasty deemed sufficient. 37 gives weight effect limited, fact, identified specific ways pattern persons committing robbery, close intent accidental. comparable various parts imprisonment. These exactly types disparities discover. 38 plainly treating differently docket. Rather, "an singled out summary treatment announced intention execute ordinary run course." 3404, (MARSHALL, dissenting) original).7 IV 39 By vacating proceed, implicitly choosing unacceptable alternatives. Either preempting mandates announcing someone executed using imminently declared unconstitutional. Only after assurance am appalled unwilling clarification 41 BLACKMUN, decides Harris argued share BRENNAN's resolution inevitably To sure, forthcoming favorable However be, summarily and, extent, pre-empts me orderly require remain decided. dissent untoward rush 83-3647 Oct. Prior 12:00 a.m. 3:00 Tuesday, 25, Proffitt 242, 258-260, 2960, 2969-70, 913 Florida "by statewide jurisdiction, assure consistency, fairness, rationality" penalty); Jurek Texas, 262, 276, 2958, 929 JJ.); 19, 2741 frivolous nonsubstantial justice standards. Prejean, 240, 249-252 (La.1980) (Dennis, dissenting rehearing). concludes certiorari." ante, 52. above, already poses "certworthy" contradicted previous 704 1325, 1326 1983), recognized similarity prisoners Article 905.9 Code Procedure "review excessive" directs "establish review." La.Code Crim.Proc.Ann., Art. (West Supp.1983). Acting pursuant direction, adopted Rule 28, provides part "[i]n excessive defendant." 1(c). intentionally patterned (1976). Sonnier, 1336, 1358 (La.1979). procedure, compares 2939-40; 58. occasions, expressed disapproval 'growing inexplicable readiness "dispose of" summarily.' Hutto Davis, 454 370, 387-388, 703, 712, 70 556 Rivera, 339, 349-350, 460, 466, 530 (1981) dissenting)). text, proves disturbing "if grants fix thirty forty-five dissolution order." La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 15:567 means rescheduled hears extremely unlikely rendered suggest STEVENS 52, jury. unduly because, overstating role responsibilities Unlike (1963), remanded matter. unequivocally biased guilt-phase "in presently available information," juror guilt. 516-518, 1774-75, (1968). Bumper North Carolina, 545, nn. 5-6, 1788, 1790, 797 conclusion, reached years scholarship re-examined. Grigsby Mabry, 569 F.Supp. 1273 (ED Ark.1983); Winick, Prosecutorial Peremptory Challenge Practices Capital Cases: An Empirical Study Constitutional Analysis, 81 Mich.L.Rev. (1982). necessary.

Category: 0