Document: 510 U.S. 222 SCHIROv.FARLEY, SUPERINTENDENT, INDIANA STATE PRISON, ET AL. No. 92-7549. Supreme Court of United States. Argued November 1, 1993. Decided January 19, 1994. At petitioner Schiro's state court trial on three counts murder—including, in Count I, the charge that he "knowingly" killed victim, and, II, her while committing rape—the jury returned a verdict guilty but left remaining sheets blank. The imposed death sentence, finding State had proved statutory aggravating factor Schiro "committed murder by intentionally killing victim or attempting to commit . rape," and no mitigating circumstances been established. After twice affirming sentence proceedings, Indiana again affirmed remand from Federal District habeas rejecting argument jury's failure convict him I operated as an acquittal intentional murder, Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited use circumstance for sentencing purposes. Appeals accepted this conclusion Court's denial relief, ruling also collateral estoppel was not implicated since show actually necessarily determined issue sought foreclose his II conviction did act with respect charge. Held: 1. Although undoubtedly has discretion reach State's granting relief would require retroactive application new rule, violation principle announced Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, will do so present circumstances, where raise either lower courts its brief opposition petition writ certiorari. Pp. 228-229. 2. does vacation sentence. His proceeding amounted successive prosecution is inconsistent prior decisions. Because second following retrial ordinarily constitutional, see, e. g., Stroud States, 251 15, 17-18, initial guilt violate Clause. upheld convictions enhance sentences subsequent convictions, even though means defendant must, certain sense, relitigate conduct which previously tried. See, Spencer Texas, 385 554, 560. In short, applied prosecutions, written terms potential risk conviction, punishment. Bullington Missouri, 451 430, 438, 446, distinguished. 229-232. 3. Nor doctrine address contention bars "intentional" circumstance, because met burden establishing factual predicate doctrine, namely, ultimate fact once favor. Ashe Swenson, 397 436, 443. Specifically, examination entire record shows court's instructions intent kill were ambiguous, uncertainty exists whether believed it could return more than one verdict, entered have grounded other kill, see id., at 444, accordingly, failed demonstrate count. 232-236. 963 F. 2d 962, affirmed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, filed dissenting opinion, post, p. 237. STEVENS, joined, 239. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR SEVENTH CIRCUIT. Monica Foster, appointment 508 970, argued cause petitioner. With briefs Rhonda Long-Sharp. Arend J. Abel, Deputy Attorney General Indiana, respondents. Pamela Carter, General, Matthew R. Gutwein Wayne E. Uhl, Attorneys General. JUSTICE O'CONNOR Court. 1 case we determine requires us vacate Thomas Schiro. For reasons explained below, hold not. 2 * convicted sentenced murder. body Laura Luebbehusen discovered home morning February 5, 1981, roommate, Darlene Hooper, Hooper's former husband. who away, find disarray. Blood covered walls floor; Luebbehusen's semiclad lying near entrance. police recovered scene broken vodka bottle, handle metal portions iron, bottles various types liquor. 3 pathologist testified there number contusions body, including injuries head. lacerations nipple thigh, tear vagina, all caused after death. A forensic dentist thigh injury human bite. strangulation. 4 car later found halfway house living. told counselor wanted discuss something "heavy." App. 53. confessed another committed arrest, inmate county jail drinking taking Quaaludes night killing, intercourse both before her. 5 admitted girlfriend, Mary Lee. Lee gained access telling down. Once house, exposed himself She she lesbian, raped child, never otherwise want sex. Nonetheless, numerous times. There evidence forced consume drugs alcohol. When tried escape, restrained least more. Then, lay slept bed, realized die turn in. He bottle beat head until broke. then iron when resisted, finally strangled dragged into room sexually assaulted corpse. attempted destroy linking crime. 6 time crime, defined follows: 7 "A person who: 8 "(1) knowingly kills being; 9 "(2) being arson, burglary, child molesting, criminal deviate conduct, kidnapping, rape robbery; "commits felony." Ind. Code § 35-42-1-1 (Supp. 1978). 10 charged Luebbehusen; crime rape; III conduct. 3-5. penalty Counts III. 11 trial, contest Luebbehusen. Indeed, closing argument, defense attorney stated: "Was killing? Sure, doubt about it. Did Tom it? Sure There's question it, I'm going try. .. `bamboozle' jury. it." Brief Respondent 24. Instead, reason insanity mentally ill, alternative permitted under law. 12 given possible verdicts, among them described above, lesser included offenses voluntary involuntary manslaughter, insanity, guilty. 37-38. five hours deliberation, II; 13 Under law, obtain required establish beyond reasonable existence nine factors. 35-50-2-9(b) relevant here is: "[T]he commit. rape" enumerated felony. 35-50-2-9(b)(1). Upon proof factor, sentencer weighs against any circumstances. jury, "jury. reconvene[s] hearing" "recommend should be imposed." §§ 35-50-2-9(d), (e). judge makes "the final determination considering recommendation." 35-50-2-9(e)(2). "The bound recommendation," however. Ibid. 14 primary hearing weight evidence. Defense counsel stated "I assume your [at phase that] you've probably decided" proved. 31-32. therefore confined plea leniency, citing mental emotional problems. statements counsel, recommended penalty. rejected recommendation While pending direct appeal, granted make findings regarding "[t]he rape." 46. established, reaffirmed Id., 50. 15 appeal State, N. 1047 (1983). This denied 464 1003 postconviction court. Again, judgment 479 556 (1985). 475 1036 (1986). corpus States Northern Indiana. Judge remanded exhaustion remedies. third time. 533 1201 (1989). doing, first count held "[felony murder] offense [murder] instant case, finds remains silent other, operate elements type chose consider." 1208. 493 910 16 federal petition. Clark, 754 Supp. 646 (ND 1990). Seventh Circuit 962 (1992). charge, violated circumstance. concluded must seeks foreclose" "Schiro's murder/rape pure matter law." n. 7. 17 We certiorari, 905 (1993), consider relying 18 argues 288 (1989) (plurality opinion). analysis our step review case. Graham Collins, 506 461, 466-467 (1993). bar rules not, however, jurisdictional. Collins Youngblood, 497 37, 40-41 (1990). courts. Cf. Parke Raley, 20, 26 claims made Taylor Freeland & Kronz, 503 638, 645-646 (1992), recognize respondent, entitled rely legal support below. Dandridge Williams, 471, 475, (1970). 19 Nevertheless, argue deciding grant certiorari particular heavily submissions parties stage. See Rule 15.1. If, appears warrant review, expectation able decide issue. Since can waive raising Godinez Moran, 509 389, 397, propriety reaching merits dispute important consideration omission stage significant. these IV 20 based 21 recognized consists several protections: "It protects same acquittal. It conviction. And multiple punishments offense." North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 717 (1969) (footnotes omitted). These protections stem underlying premise punished offense. Wilson, 420 332, 339 (1975). operates "bar repeated attempts convict, consequent subjection embarrassment, expense, anxiety, insecurity, possibility may innocent." DiFrancesco, 449 117, 136 (1980). acquitted, "Clause guarantees shall him." supra, 343. Where, "no threat punishment offended." S., 344 (footnote Thus, cases evil guarded prosecutions: prohibition trials controlling constitutional principle." 132 (internal citations Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 564, 569 (1977). 22 urges treat single purposes decline so. Our decisions are amount prosecution. 17-18 (1919), defendant's overturned resentenced retrial. Similarly, infirmity holding improperly pardoned. Lockhart Nelson, 488 33 (1988). 721 ("[W]e cannot say guarantee double jeopardy own restricts imposition lawful punishment" upon retrial); Chaffin Stynchcombe, 412 17, 23-24 (1973) (same). If Clause, fail how 23 560 (1967). Moore 159 673, 678 (1895) ("[T]he provide persons suffer severer offences offence"). "is punishment." Price Georgia, 398 323, 329 24 decision (1981), contrary. capital proceeding, term years. overturned; resentencing general rule imposes absolute harsher retrial." 438. narrow exception scheme "differ[ed] significantly those employed inapplicable sentencing." "was itself punishment," ibid., requiring submit second, identical tantamount permitting acquitted defendant, 446. 25 manifestly different. Neither nor here—the reprosecute force hearing. simply conducted course "one fair opportunity" prosecute Bullington, 446 quotation marks omitted), opportunity extends only phase, ensuing proceeding. V contends principles 436 (1970), incorporates proceedings. Dowling 342, 347 Collateral estoppel, or, modern usage, preclusion, "means valid judgment, litigated between future lawsuit." Ashe, "intentionally" murdering Luebbehusen, result, precluded commit... if applicable, "issue determined" 27 2d, 1201. Ordinarily presume correctness fact. 28 2254(d). Cichos 76, 79-80 (1966). preclusive effect law de novo. 444. "whether rational than" kill. Wright, A. Miller, Cooper, Practice Procedure 4421, 192 (1981) ("Issue preclusion attaches determinations necessary action"). To so, "examine account pleadings, evidence, ." 444 "on whose relitigation decided proceeding." Dowling, 350. example, contended robbery, considered during discussion lawyers asserted intruder's identity 351. "any explanations verdict," "failed satisfy demonstrating" intruders. 352. 29 Applying principles, instructed verdicts listed sheets. fact, indications might verdict. "have go back try figure out eight ten verdicts.. you Court." Respondents 17. "you allowed verdict." 27. indicated possible, 27-28, impossible tell relied on. dissent concludes lack intent, way expressed leaving form blank, did. What stands such inference, acted without ever deliberating I. clear needed each independently, draw 30 ambiguous. "knowingly being" "kills "murder." felony rape, 31 interpret provided definition 21, prove murder: "To sustain prove. [t]hat engaged [and] knew intended Luebbehusen." 22-23 (emphasis added). instruction differentiate two ways proving "murder" further best source applicable case." 20. well believed, therefore, knowing order counts. sum, light instructions, depend lacked 32 conclusion, note additional indicating significant primarily showing insane, point witnesses assert located transcript proceedings discussed put defense. But, accept Even apparently reconvened appropriate belief convicting kill: statute provides consider. committed, commission some things. Friday, Saturday, assuming done most likely mind." 34 Finally, observe entirely consistent presented trial. By admission, escape police. addition, physical suggested deliberate, rather unintentional, accidental, reckless, killing. repeatedly beaten iron; 35 silence Green 355 184, 190-191 (1957); 329. effect, unless establishes As "grounded consideration." view confession "burden 36 37 So ordered. dissenting. 38 join STEVENS' opinion. write separately believe compelling ground 39 placed majority rejects claim theory "a Clause," fails "how so." Ante, 230. essential uniquely constitute "jeopardy" examined hallmarks innocence," 439, "prov[e] case" doubt, bifurcated places 40 indistinguishable confronted Bullington. Justice DeBruler noted affirmance appeal: 41 reconvenes presided over judge. prosecutor. Evidence adversarial setting doubt. arguments retires deliberate returns open recommendation. full scale every sense terms. surely feel `direct peril' receiving receive jury." 1047, 1065 (Ind. 1983) (citation 42 "unique" nature identified 442, derives fundamental "different," Gardner Florida, 349, 357 (1977) opinion); Woodson Carolina, 428 280, 305 (1976) Furman 408 238, 306 (1972) (Stewart, concurring), heightened reliability stages "trial-like" trauma underwent defending death, directly analogous guilt-phase thus bring play. 43 "actually purposes, ante, 236, impliedly 191 (1957) (jury verdict"); Stevens pointedly notes, 243, reprosecuted aggravator sentencing, ha[d] already whatever impose sentence." 445. Over unanimous life remand, condemned reliance nunc pro tunc very acquitted. tolerated 44 respectfully dissent. 45 whom BLACKMUN joins, 46 Thereafter, separate hearing, unanimously deserve penalty, presumably kill.1 overrode Months later, give justify victim. That finding, like majority's today, central purpose raised resolved long discharged, constitutionally impermissible reexamine rests unauthorized set aside. 47 devotes facts. disagree gruesome character precisely favorable prosecutors seeking Such facts increase jurors' inclination they unfortunate Yet despite horror jurors still refused executed. enigmatic 48 principal condition. No disputed victim's remained ways. Five expert —two selected court, called defense—testified length unusual personality, Tr. 1699, drug alcohol addiction, 1859, 1877, history illness, 1412, 1414, 1703-1708, 1871, 1877. Lay bizarre attachment mannequin, 1469-1470, 1699-1702, incidents lent diminished capacity. Conceivably, persuaded responsible manslaughter details confessions convinced offense, requisite 49 careful perusal forms demonstrates nothing arguably ambiguous their could. Each contained space checked agreement proposed disagreement leave blank checking one, seven alternatives (two involving offenses, anything), (guilty III), ultimately recorded II.2 remainder charges. Notably, fourth executed check fifth others blank—which exactly what 50 less clear, governing lead conclusion. just counts, one. similar situation 184 (1957), treated differently, expressly read: "`We degree.'" 191.3 explanation intent—a sentencing. opinion: 51 "At used resource disposal persuade appellant mind judge, yet mind, succeeded. my view, charging deemed equivalent immutable rejection deserves mind. condition charge." 1201, 1209 52 judge's override rested victim—an that, established 35-50-2-9(e)(1) words, otherwise. Constitution preclude overriding Spaziano 468 447, 490 (1984), egregious embedded occurs base rejected.4 happened here. 53 Having plainly retry discharged. An equally predicated postverdict reexamination State. execution nonetheless forward anomalous result improbable assumption advances assumption: "confession 236.5 None justifies result. 54 confessions, evaluated context record. sufficient count, quite wrong suggest necessitated 1068 (Prentice, concurring dissenting) (stating compelled"). whole, experts' testimony, fully prosecutor's submission question. 55 Instruction 8, informed intent. 234.6 Most naturally read, referred suggests, refer "both" ibid.; contrary, mention element Accordingly, clearly commits someone "[k]ills robbery." 21; 35-42-2-1 charges III, misstated accurately worth noting opinions members wrote different litigation construed III.7 56 surmises "might 233. foreman "must sign date verdict(s) agree," 28, speculation unfounded. Similarly unwarranted isolated remarks substantiate speculation. understandably urged exonerate client minimize culpability. Any submitted served purpose. amorphous reference went "because depending stop on." 57 comment 27, statement meant forms, blatantly law.8 More plausibly, forms. event, uphold insubstantial improper predicate. 58 Nothing said supports failing Moreover, refuses acknowledge express did—that is, authorize conduct.9 thereafter prosecuted Given possibly favor arguable basis issue, component 59 Stewart (1970) omitted): 60 hypertechnical archaic approach 19th century pleading book, realism rationality. Where previous usually `examine matter, conclude consideration.' inquiry `must practical frame viewed eye proceedings.' Sealfon 332 575, 579. test technically restrictive would, course, acquittal." 61 appraisal compels critical contrary "technically restrictive" amounts 62 Notes: Indiana's statute, seek 35-50-2-9(a) six felonies. recommend outweigh 35-50-2-9(e) began: "We, defendant...." were: (1) "... ...." (2) ". Murder ill (3) information." (4) guilty." (5) (6) (7) Voluntary Manslaughter." (8) Involuntary (9) Manslaughter, ill." (10) "American uniformity neither within ."355 194, 14. alsoPrice 328-329 sure, generally Courts noncapital factors See,e. Carrozza, 3d 70, 80 (CA1 1993); Olderbak, 961 756, 764-765 (CA8), cert. denied, 959 (1992); Averi, 922 765, 765-766 (CA11 1991); Rodriguez-Gonzalez, 899 177, 180-182 (CA2), 498 844 (1990); Isom, 886 736, 738-739 (CA4 1989); Juarez-Ortega, 866 747, 749 (CA5 McMillan Pennsylvania, 477 79 (1986) (applying preponderance-of-evidence standard considerations mandatory minimum satisfies due process). stems cases. Mocciola, 891 13, 16-17 1989). But practice factors—just trial—must correctly avoids rationale— distinction "knowing" killing—that adopted. Noting merely whereas supporting killed, "could conclusion" hearingSchiro 1208 greater awareness consequences illusory unsatisfactory. justices pointed out, difference states insignificant instance, esoteric: accord difference, presently unaware strangling another, having goal strangle person." 1209. "to murder," Luebbehusen," "when 22-23. "[i]f propositions insane guilty."Id., 23. assumes, "that counts,"ante, 235, (Count I) II) forth limitation properly return, juries regularly bothmens rea Roche 596 896 1992); Lewis 595 753 Hopkins 582 345 1991). suggestion reached I,"ante, 234, speculation, highly improbable. Presumably normally begin deliberations indictment them. noteworthy explains why III—namely, sexual Thus disposition phase.

Category: 0