Document: 547 U.S. ___ (2006) KANSAS, PETITIONER v. MICHAEL LEE MARSH, II No. 04-1170. Supreme Court of United States. Decided June 26, 2006. JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion Court. Kansas law provides that if a unanimous jury finds aggravating circumstances are not outweighed by mitigat- ing circumstances, death penalty shall be imposed. Kan. Stat. Ann. §21-4624(e) (1995). We must decide whether this statute, which requires imposition when sentencing determines evidence and mitigating in equipoise, violates Constitution. hold it does not. I Respondent Michael Lee Marsh broke into home Marry Ane Pusch lay wait for her to return. When entered with 19-month-old daughter, M. P., repeatedly shot Ane, stabbed her, slashed throat. The was set on fire toddler inside, P. burned death. convicted capital murder first-degree premeditated ag- gravated arson, aggravated burglary. found beyond reasonable doubt existence three aggravat- those were any circumstances. On basis findings, sentenced also life imprisonment without possibility parole 40 years consecutive sentences 51 months' arson 34 aggra- vated direct appeal, challenged §21-4624(e), reads: "If, vote, rea- sonable one or more cir- cumstances enumerated K. S. A. 21-4625 . exist and, further, such is exist, defendant death; otherwise as provided law." Focusing phrase "shall death," argued establishes an unconstitu- tional presumption favor because directs equipoise. agreed, held facially unconstitutional. 278 520, 534-535, 102 P.3d 445, 458 (2004). court concluded statute's weigh- equation violated Eighth Fourteenth Amend- ments States Constitution because, "[i]n event i.e., jury's determination balance miti- gating weighed equal, would required." Id., at 534, P.3d, 457. affirmed Marsh's conviction sentence burglary mur- der reversed remanded new trial convictions arson.[1] granted certiorari, 544 1060 (2005), now reverse Court's judgment Kansas' In addition granting certiorari review constitu- tionality we directed parties brief argue: (1) have jurisdiction under 28 C. §1257, construed Cox Broadcasting Corp. Cohn, 420 469 (1975); (2) supported adequate state grounds independent federal law. 1060. Having considered par- ties' arguments, conclude case constitutional issue properly before A Title §1257 authorizes review, writ final highest State validity statute questioned grounds. This has determined foregoing authorization permits State, even though state-court proceedings yet com- plete, "where claim been finally decided, further merits courts come, but later cannot had, whatever ultimate outcome case." Broadcasting, supra, 481. Here, although will retried charges, Su- preme unconstitutional binding lower courts. Thus, unable obtain its case. If acquitted murder, double jeopardy preclude from ap- pealing. he reconvicted, prohibited decision seeking penalty, there no opportunity seek prohibition. Al- argues provision criminal appeals §22-3602(b) (2003 Cum. Supp.), permit appeal invalidation conten- tion meritless. That limited only four none apply here. deemed decisions purposes like see Florida Meyers, 466 380 (1984) (per curiam); South Dakota Neville, 459 553 (1983); New York Quarles, 467 649 (1984), do so again B Nor main- tains based severability law, constitutionality latter having resolved Kleypas, 272 894, 139 (2001). argument fails. itself, rested See id., 899 903, 166-167. rendering here, observed "held weighing 21-4624(e) written Four- teenth Amendments" applied cases vating equally bal- anced. Kan., case, chastised Kleypas avoiding facial validity, squarely face, overruled portion upholding through avoid- ance doctrine judicial revision. 539-542, 458, 462. As Kan- sas clearly here Amendments We, therefore, decision. Michigan Long, 463 1032, 1040- 1041 (1983). III controlled Walton Arizona, 497 639 (1990), other grounds, Ring 536 584 (2002). had offense. At sentencing, judge two did call leniency, U.S., 645. Arizona affirmed, resolve conflict between Walton, 159 Ariz. 571, 769 P.2d 1017 (1989) (en banc) (holding constitutional), Ninth Cir- cuit's Adamson Ricketts, 865 F.2d 1011, 1043-1044 (1988) (finding "in situations where balance, or, give reservation still fall below weight bars imposing less than death"). U. S., 647. Consistent Circuit's conclusion Adamson, system created "tells who single factor, imposed, unlessas Ari- zona put Petitioner's casethere 'outweighing factors.'" Brief Petitioner O. T. 1989, 88-7351, p. 33; (arguing " 'must bear risk nonper- suasion circumstance out- weigh circumstance'" (alteration omit- ted)). Rejecting Walton's argument, 650, 651, stated: "So long State's method allocating burdens proof lessen burden prove every element offense charged, defendant's rights placing him proving sufficiently substantial leni- ency." 650. noted that, requirement individualized consider all relevant mitigation, stat- ute evi- dence comports requirement. 652 (citing Blystone Pennsylvania, 494 299, 307 (1990)). pointedly while discretion, mandate discretion unfettered; free determine manner may evidence. Boyde California, 370, 374 So sentencer precluded considering evidence, said impermissibly, much automatically, impose Woodson North Caro- lina, 428 280 (1976) (plurality opinion), Roberts Louisiana, 325 opinion)). Indeed, suggested systems impermissibly mandatory "automatically upon con- viction certain types murder." 652. Contrary contentions conclusions, 536-538, 3d, 459, question presented instant Walton. Though, notes, employ term "equipoise," undeniably gave rise ques- sought resolve, necessarily included required pen- alty unless 5. Moreover, dissent reinforces what evident Courtthat equipoise Court, State. "equipoise" was, large measure, dis- sent. 687-688 (opinion Blackmun, J.) ("If [Arizona] punishment. assertion imposed runs directly counter Amendment rest 'determination appropriate punishment specific case'"). discuss equi- poise explicitly, holding. Cf. post, 2 (STEVENS, J., dissenting); cf. 2, n. 1 (SOUTER, dissenting). Our controls reinforced fact statutes comparable important respects. Similar express language consistently mean finding circumstances.[2] Ysea, 191 372, 375, 956 499, 502 (1998) banc); Gretzler, 135 42, 55, 659 1, 14 (1983) (in F. 2d, 1041-1043. Like places both utes require proffer distinct respect. once met burden, tasks de- fendant sufficient overcome therefore war- ranted. contrast, jury, reason- able doubt, aggravators gators appropri- ate; additional evidentiary defendant. distinction operates defendants. Otherwise func- substantially same analogous our purposes. distin- guishable Accordingly, reasoning approval statute. bottom, place outweigh circum- stances. fortiori, consis- tent Constitution, proved mitigators aggrava- tors, including IV Even if, contends, control, general principles forth jurisprudence lead us constitutionally permissible. Together, Furman Geor- gia, 408 238 (1972) curiam), Gregg 153 (joint Stewart, Powell, STEVENS, JJ.), establish sentenc- must: rationally narrow class death- eligible defendants; render reasoned, death-eligible record, personal character- istics, his crime. 189. satisfies these requirements, precedents enjoys range discre- weighed. Franklin Lynaugh, 487 164, 179 opinion) Zant Stephens, 462 862, 875-876, 13 (1983)). use mitigation product re- quirement sentencing. Graham Collins, 506 461, 484-489 (1993) (THOMAS, concur- ring) (discussing development precedent). Lockett Ohio, 438 586, 604 (1978), plurality "the considering, aspect defen- dant's character record proffers sen- tence death." (Emphasis original.) full access "'highly relevant'" information. 603 ted) (quoting Williams York, 337 241, 247 (1949)). Lockett, struck down Ohio limit- consideration factors specified prevented sentencers giving militating 604-605. Following Eddings Okla- homa, 455 104 (1982), majority categorically refuse 114; Skip- per Carolina, 476 3-4 (1986) Eddings). aggregate, confer defendants right present information oblige determining sentence. thrust ends "[W]e never balancing proceeding Franklin, Zant, 13). Rather, enjoy 'a permissible penalty.'" Blystone, 308 McCleskey Kemp, 481 279, 305-306 (1987)). (stating "[t]he individual- ized satisfied allowing evidence"); Gra- ham, 490 concurring) "[o]ur early thus read doing little safeguarding adversary process conferring affirmative sentencer"). mandates progeny narrows determination. It interfere, significant way, ability of- fered mitigation. procedure universe consistent requirements. Under option after elements intentional found. §21-3439. Once becomes seeks separate hearing, §§21-4706(c) 21-4624(a); App. 23 (Instruction 2), proves statutorily enu- merated §§21-4624(c), (e), 21-4625; 24 3). Consonant require- ment, permitted relating defendant, relevant. §21-4624(c). Specifically, jurors instructed: "A fairness mercy extenuating reduc- degree moral culpability blame justify death, excuse you facts "The appropriateness exercise can itself factor termining warranted." 4).[3] Jurors then apprised of, to, contends mitigating. 25-26. They instructed "[e]ach juror she individually exist." 26. equation, ibid. 5), merely channels providing criteria appropriate. pro- vides type 'guided discretion,'" Gregg, 189), sanc- tioned Boyde, Blystone. sanctioned instruction analytically indistinguishable today. read: 'If im- pose However, gravating confinement prison parole.'" (emphasis original). instruc- rejected argu- concluding foreclosed nearly identical challenge Pennsylvania 307.[4] holding, lan- guage prevent consid- ering 374. Similarly impermis- sibly likewise foreclosed.[5] create Kansas. tencing dominated conviction. fails meet demon- strate circumstance(s) imprison- ment §21-4624(e); 27 10). overcomes hurdle, bears Ibid. 10); 26 5). Significantly, appropriately proffering circumstancesa productionhe demonstrating Instead, always Absent default imprisonment. reach decisionin respecta §21-4624(c); 12). pre- sumption capi- tal murder.[6] force behind contention reflects confusion inability loophole shirk duty decision, California Brown, 479 538, 545 (1987) (O'Connor, ring), regarding particular Such rests implausible characterization statutethat deathand misses mark. 4-5 dissenting) undermines sentencing). Weigh- end; means reaching deci- sion. instructions inform fornot ofdeath. jurors, presumed follow their instructions, made aware that: deter- mination sion appropriate; aggravatorsincluding balanceis sentence; result informed, far abdication select depicted SOUTER, indicative measured, normative tasked engage deciding V SOUTER (hereinafter dissent) advent DNA testing resulted "exonera- tio[n]" "innocent" persons numbers imagined tests." Post, 5-6. Based "new empirical demonstration how 'death different,'" 8, concludes absence reasoned judgment. But availability testing, questions might raise about accuracy guilt-phase determina- tions cases, simply irrelevant today, namely, system. accu- racy dissent's factual established "innocence" numerous sentencesand incendiary debate invokesis scope opinion.[7] criticisms against ultimately resolving legal disputes adopting makes difficult impose. While bright-line rule easily applied, logical consequence ar- gument just error. Because justice operate perfectly, abolition answer dilemma poses. however, sit authority. prohibit authorizing imperfect And empower chip away States' prerogatives invokes * system, constitutional. remand inconsistent opinion. ordered. SCALIA, concurring. join write separately clarify briefly import my joinder, respond somewhat greater length first STEVENS' tention it, merit attention, second SOUTER's claims risks inherent Part opinionwhich plain why casewould below. nonetheless well, describes Kansas's incoherent ours become. so, endorse incoherence, adhere previous statement "I vote up- sentencer's unlawfully restricted." 673 (concurring part concurring judgment). gives several reasons petitioner, deserve attention. '[N]o law,'" says, 'commanded grant certio- rari.'" 3 Ramos, 992, 1031 dissenting)). true, course, almost entire docket; very nature jurisdiction. Also self-evident, since borders '[n]o [Kansas] precedent stand.'" signaled impropriety grant- determi- nations they patently contra- dict (as does) holdings Federal Courts Appeals, compare 534-537, 457-459 (2004) (case below), 1005- 1007, 139, 225-226 (2001), with, e.g., Hoffman, 123 Idaho 638, 646-647, 851 934, 942-943 (1993), Jones Dugger, 928 1020, 1029 (CA11 1991)and indeed, contradict own decisions. principal responsibility current practice, primary Constitution's accorded decisions, Art. III, §2, cls. ensure integrity uniformity law.[1] Rule 10(b), (c). Fulfillment responsibil- ity is, mildly, charge '[n]othing interest facilitating justified Court.'" holding Ramos "ironi[c]," J.), misguided view federalism worse still, republi- form government. Only explain sent's suggestion Ramos's reversal somehow undermined ruled inserted penal code voter initiative, 995, 4, invalid matter fed- eral 996, 997, 7. erroneously invalidate actions taken people (through initiative normal operation political branches govern- ment) state-law generally business; displacing judgments indeed intrusion autonomy. believe itand especially itreview undermining autonomy, possible way vindicate it. interdict duly expressed nounced court, authority Statenot referendum agreed citi- zenscan undo displays respect States, complacent willingness allow judges strip power govern themselves. cor- rect court's errors, return people. necessary. solemn "ha[s] adequately protected [a defendant's] Constitution," speak name disregard guaranteesneither assure defendants, nor Justice Black, famous re Winship, 397 358, 385 (1970), called most fun- damental individual liberty peoplethe each man participate self-government society." Turning blind eye error benefits permeate varying fashion jurisprudence, change uniform "law land" crazy quilt. top all, proposes avowedly favors party case: loses questionable point, review; loses, deny Con- gress thumb scales seems me peculiar mode decisionmak- sworn "impartially discharge duties" office, §453. guided erations 10. None them turns identity asserted misapplication harmed. legislation thwartednot application lawsI continue resulting peti- certiorari. Finally, say few words (indeed, few) response dissent. contains disclaimer dissenters (yet) ready "generaliz[e] soundness across country," 9; precisely do. essentially undesirable institu- tionit results condemnation num- ber innocentsthat eliminates pronouncement, favored dissent- ers should embraced. rule, think heap either praise censure legislative measure comes them, lest thought validation, invalidation, interpretation driven desire expand constrict personally approve disapprove policy. example, leap dissenters' views disapproval institution mocratically adopted 38 course leap; take word. For described, minimized bad, "risk[y]," "haz- ard[ous]" idea, broader derive, however (and either), encumbering unwarranted restrictions neither contained text Constitu- reflected centuries practice policy viewsviews shared vast American proclamation agenda striking nailed door wrong churchthat litigating nothing evaluation guilt innocence. There are, many serve function, see, House Bell, (2006). (Marsh himself earned ante, 2-3.) observes, 16-17, inno- cence logically disconnected standards. time vision dant guilty crime.[2] exists some parts world sanctimonious criticism America's unwor- thy civilized society. (I sanctimonious, countries finger-waggers belong themselves until recentlyand democratic prevailed.[3]) certainty near-majority effect condemns innocent dants trumpeted abroad vindication criticisms. reason, trouble point out dissenting substan- tial support outset casenot onein clear person executed crime commit. occurred recent years, "equipoise doubt" hunt it; innocent's shouted rooftops lobby. new-found capacity am aware, technology firmed guilt. happened, instance, months ago Roger Coleman. Coleman gruesome rape sister-in-law, persuaded actually be- came poster-child abolitionist Glod & Shear, Tests Confirm Guilt Man Executed Va., Washington Jan. 13, 2006, A1; Dao, Ties '92 Murder He Denied, N. Y. Times, A14. Around eventual execution, "his picture cover Time magazine ('This Might Be Innocent. Is Due Die'). interviewed row 'Larry King Live,' 'Today' show, 'Primetime 'Good Morning America' 'The Phil Donahue Show.'" Frankel, Burden Proof, May 14, pp. W8, W11. opin- ion filed shortly cautioned "Coleman produced die." Thompson, 504 188, 189 (1992) (Blackmun, failed lie-detector test offered Governor Virginia condition stay; 20, 1992. W23; Warner Orders Testing Case '92, 6, A1, A6. then, Coleman's became rally- abolitionists, hoped offer "Holy Grail: tube executed." W24. earlier year, ordered guilty, A14, defense team "proved" innocence identified real killer" (with whom eventually settled defamation suit). W23. unique. Truth Consequences: Penalty Death, Debating Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punish- ment? Experts Both Sides Make Their Best Case, 128-129 (H. Bedau Cassell eds. 2004) supposed innocents Rick McGinn Derek Barnabei, whose confirmed tests). Instead identifying discussing mistaken cites handful studies bemoan alleged prevalence wrongful sentences. One study (by Lanier Acker) quoted claiming 'more 110' prisoners released 1973 findings crimes 'hundreds potentially documented over past century.'" 8 J.). Acker cite work Information Center (more below) article jointly authored Radelet, Lofquist, (two professors sociology professor philosophy). 1987 Radelet. Miscar- riages Potentially Cases, Stan. L. Rev. 21. paragraph quotes, refer "hav[ing] individuals who, judgment, country during 20th century notwithstanding innocence." Acker, Punishment, Moratorium Movement, Empirical Questions, 10 Psychology, Public Policy Law 577, 593 highly influential world. Hundreds aca- demic articles, relied today's dissent, cited appearance decisionscited recently six-judge 386 F.3d 668, 708 (CA6 (Merritt, dissenting), proposition allow- warrants observations. article's obsolescence began moment publication. executions 1984, 1964, 1951; predate Allied victory World War II. (Two Sacco Vanzetti.) 73. except (perhaps) 1984 example cast light functioning adjudication. community's attitude toward protections afford, guarantees enforces, habeas vastly different 1961. scien- tific establishing guilt, hence innocence subject popular TV series. (One means, test- ingwhich primarily identify convicted, rather effective avoid innocent.) relevance aside, study's conclu- sions unverified. sig- nificant conclusionthe execution centuryis indication accuracy, careless rely worthy credence. alleges restoration 1976the James Adams 1984 easiest verify. Adams' cence, hair could being "clutched victim's hand," 91. hand; "[i]t remnant sweeping ambulance come another source." Markman Cas- sell, Protecting Innocent: Response Bedau- Radelet Study, 41 121, 131 (1988). witness "heard voice inside crime" testified "voice woman's," witness's actual testimony voice, '"In God, don't it" '" unlikely anyone male victim), 'sounded "kind woman's kind strangling something ." Cassell, Innocent, 130. mention arrest afternoon $200 pocketone bill "was stained O blood. Ad- ams asked blood money, cut finger. His AB, O." 132. Among unmentioned, incriminating details: eyeglasses car, along jewelry belonging victim, clothing ams' sam- ple arrayed "innocent." 128-133, 148-150. Critics regard "appellate opinions detail neutral observer assess authors' conclusions." 134. (For rest, "a reasonably complete account readily available," 145.) verifiable ones, authors acknowledged, "We agree critics 'proved' innocent; claimed had." Myth Infallibility: Reply 161, 164 strik- conclusion, dubious methodology, pages Reports. alas, too late that. Although relies indirectly, January 1993 already embraced "One impres- sive study," (referring study), "has century, cently 1984." Herrera 390, 430, joined STEVENS JJ., dissenting).[4] Remarkably erroneous executions, focuses non-executed "exonerees" paraded various professors. speaks exoneration outside correct mistakes Reversal habeas, pardoning condemnee executive clemency, demonstrates failure success. Those devices parcel multiple assurances plied carried out. Of exonerees, willing accept anybody's say-so. engages critical parrots articles reports attack weight, Illinois Report (compiled appointees declared moratorium commuted Warden, Reform: How Happened, What Promises, 95 J. Crim. 381, 406-407, 410 (2006)), shows "false verdicts" "remarkable number." 9 Re- port identifies inmates innocent. To discussed judg- "as close nor- mally render," 7, 2: People Smith, 185 Ill. 2d 532, N.E.2d 365 (1999) twice murder. After trial, "reversed [his] errors" trial. N.E.2d, 366. Smith again. insufficient doubt. 542-543, 370-371. explained: "While sometimes equated innocence, erroneous. find verdict expresses conviction] indicates prosecution bur- den proof." 545, 371. alone suffices refute distinguishes "exoneration convict affecting fact," 2. utterly impossible "exoneration"however casually definedas effectiveness releasing innocent, Another leading authorities exonera- Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgom- ery, Patil, Exonerations 1989 Through 2003, 523 Gross). quotes self- congratulatory "criteria" exonerationseemingly rigorous reliability. article, others cited, notable investigation analysis, fervor belief condemning cent numbers," puts "never 6 list 74 "exonerees," Gross 529, Jay Pennsylvania. Smitha school principalearned slaying teachers young children. Holtz, 210 186, 188 (CA3 2000). retrial triple barred prosecutorial misconduct 194. leave well enough alone. gall sue, 42 §1983, false ment. Appeals Third Circuit observing "our confidence Smith's diminished least. remain firmly convinced verdicts." F.3d, 198. "exonerated" murderer Jeremy Sheets, Nebraska. accomplice girl secretly tape corded; "admitted drove car used , implicated Sheets Butera, 389 772, 775 (CA8 2004). arrested described detail, plea agreement arranged, conditioned accomplice's cooperation. taped confession, crucial case," 260 Neb. 325, 327, 618 N.W.2d 117, 122 (2000). committed suicide jail, depriving cross-examine him. This, Nebraska held, rendered inadmissible Sixth Amendment. 328, 335-351, N.W.2d, 123, 127-136. central excluded, retry Sheets. 776. brought §1983 claim; District summary 780. $1,000 pay Vic- tim's Compensation Fund; Attorney General entitled moneyrefused action left open retried, General "not ground improper admission favorable disposition charges," Op. Atty. Gen. 01036 (Nov. 9), 2001 WL 1503144, *3. inflation word "exoneration," hardly stands alone; mischaracterization reversible endemic rhetoric, prominent catalogues death-penalty context suffer defect. Perhaps best-known List Freed From Row, maintained Center. http://www. deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110. includes above, enters candidates own. Delbert Tibbs them. Florida, 457 31 Double Jeopardy Clause bar "revers[ed] sufficiency, evidence," 32. in- volved woman hitchhiking together Flor- ida. driver picked up sodomized raped woman, killed boyfriend. She escaped positively Tibbs. 32-33. 4- to-3 vote. So. 788 (1976). grappled violating Clause. dou- ble-jeopardy problem, 1120, 1127 (1981) longer valid 1125, "reweigh[ing] evidence" Tibbs' "clearly improper," 1126. af- felt compelled drop charges. ex- plained Commission Cases: 'By retrial, [the] witness/victim progressed marijuana smoker crack user stand, declined prose- cute. Tibbs, opinion, wrongfully accused. lucky human being. free. 1974 miscarriage justice.'" Histories: Review Individuals Released Row 136-137 (rev. Sept. 10, 2002) http://www.floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/ Publications/innocentsproject.pdf. Other officials involved similar points. 137. distorted concept consti- tutes fairly modest: Between iden- tify 340 "exonerations" nationwidenot mind you, convictions, felonies. 529. Joshua Marquis, trict attorney Oregon, responded follows: "[L]et's benefit doubt: let's assume understated number roughly instead 4,000 weren't way. During 15 million felony country. make rate.027 percentor, success rate 99.973 percent." Innocent Shammed, A23. espe- cially liable lack 100% perfection implausible. given scrutiny level, elapse executed. receive special attention clemency. arguments abolitionists completing reexami- lengthy, expensive game worth candle. pudding, looking), .027% ver- dicts Since 1976 approximately half murders time, 7,000 derers 950 executed; 3,700 cur- rently row. Inno- 501, 518 conse- quence sensitivity due-process two-thirds overturned. "Virtually none" reversals, attributable 'actual innocence.'" Most errors 519-520. demonstrate more. institutions, juries perfect. punish- accepting someone punished mistakenly. truism, revela- tion. duced insignificant minimum. explains ideologically ferret proclaim modern whereas easy pie plainly murderers good derived punishmentin deterrence, perhaps meting condign horrible crimesoutweighs proper business Justices, second- guess impugn world, frustrate judicially invented obstacles execution. dissenting. Blackmun's plurality's 639, 649-652 subscribe reasons: fully refusing "control[ling]," 5 Court), misuse discretion. understanding exactly 'there leniency.'" 644 §13-703(E) (West 1989)). Black- mun's view, indicated "that 'sufficiently leniency' 'out- weigh' aggravation." 687. Accord- ingly, Blackmun believed confronted mandated evenly balanced. plural- similarly "requir[ing] balanced." 688. contrary, acknowledge dispositive question." confronting problem present, stare decisis bind explains, painstakingly avoided endorsement allows prosecutor argue, instruct balanced choice severe penalty. difference Waltonone kept place. petitioned enabled sider ruling protection litigant required. restraint decisionmaker kind. Brigham City Stuart, __, __ (slip op., remarkable similarity 992 reviewed invalidated standard concern- Governor's commute sentencesan unique California. By concludingsomewhat ironicallythat wisdom commutation best States." 1014. asked, "what harm done administration undis- turbed determination[?]" 1030. "If true tween balanced, reason struction givennot it." "No trivial impact be, fundamentally presiding trialwho personify evenhanded ad- ministration justiceto tell indirectly sure, concerning [death]." "no commanded certiorari." 1031. Furthermore, "[n]o stand. Nothing imposi- Court." "[t]hat interest, warrant Ibid.[*] decided day 1032 Prior "we virtually interest" aside rulings 1069 trend otherwise, hope future recognize allocation resources," 1070, older better restraint. GINSBURG, BREYER join, death" poise, [that is,] equal." below); Kley- pas, 1016, 232 (2001) "provides doubt- ful Given construction, un- 'tie g[o] defendant' issue." forbids describe "doubtful cases," equal respectfully dissent.[1] More 30 ago, explained Amendment's guarantee cruel unusual statutory schemes inarticulate wanton freakish results. Georgia, 238, 309-310 curiam) (Stew- art, ("[T]he tolerate infliction be. wantonly freakishly imposed" "capriciously selected random handful" individuals). require, instead, structured duce reliable, 280, 305 rational, Jurek Texas, 262, 276 reviewable, Woodson, 303, determinations Decades back-and-forth experi- demand rationality goes minimal replace unbounded structure; leeway devising structure selecting terms measuring relative culpability, reliability producing background, character, crime,'" Penry 492 302, 319 concurring); emphasis deleted); 153, 206 JJ.) (sanctioning procedures "focus particular- particularized characteris- tics defendant"). Amendment, demands substance, geared produce morally justifiable thinks scheme questioning, sees tie-breaker equivalent provisions examined 299 370 approved ones. predominance aggravators, recognition rein dictate satisfy now, governing going substantive justification needed first, obligation Spaziano 468 447, 460, 7 (1984). definition, attribution act committing offense, Penry, 327-328; Spaziano, 460; 879 (1983), turn uniqueness indi- vidual details crime, "directly" related. 319. Second, particulars relevant: within category crimes, reserved worst worst." See, Roper Simmons, 543 551, 568 (2005) ("Capital offenders commit serious crimes' extreme 'the deserving execution'" Atkins Vir- ginia, 304, (2002))). object struc- tured aftermath eliminate spite calling lesser 328-329, essence authority's "must 461; 184 JJ.). reject principle, perative. "may perpetrator heinous demanding offenses, tie breaker counts. linked all; considerations worst, purport reflect showing response; opposite. produces actly impasse mat- ter show- sort criminal, combination operates, chosen standards reached calls "tie," (internal quotation marks omitted). addresses unjustifiable sentence, minimizing unmistakably requires, guaranteeing realized, "plac- 'thumb [on] death's side scale,'" Sochor 527, 532 Stringer 503 222, (1992); alteration Kansas, applies stan- dards among culpable, says equivocal die. aggravation convince absurd, tolerates irrationality defies decades aimed eliminating precedent, developed ignored, kaleidoscope verdicts sense morality 1972. (Stewart, concurring). Today, body accounted what, practical terms, tolerate, period starting seen repeated exonerations convicts sentences, imag- ined tests. face mor- ally hollow maximizing requiring fail culpability: when, characteriza- tion, "doubtful." growing literature reality addressed. 2000, 1977 shown report examples illustrate theme common "rela- tively solid connecting charged crimes." Illinois, G. Ryan, Governor, ment: Recommendations (Apr. Report); 5-6, 7-9. period, 12 condemned Subsequently 4 5-6; Reform, 382, (2005).[2] wrongly demned exe- cuted, unique; exonerated, Montgomery, Exonera- 523, 531 Gross), cleared ibid.[3] states "more 110" leased "[h]undreds wrong- docu- mented century." eyewitness misidentification, confes- sion, (most frequently) perjury, 544, 551-552, total prosecutions homicide unusually high incidence convic- 552, probably owing combined difficulty investigating help intense pressure get corresponding incentive frame 532. "death different," JJ.): defy correction fatal moment, experience number, dispropor- tionately cases. soon generalization country, cautionary lesson tie-breaking potential statute: falsity infect stances predictions dangerousness. hazards prosecu- maintaining mandating pro con obtuse social measure. substance form, NOTES [1] excluding circumstantial third-party Eric Pusch, Ane's husband, accordingly ground. 528-533, 454-457. [2] (Supp. 2005) provides: "In impris- onment, trier proven. subsection F section leniency." [3] "mercy" forecloses Furman-type "eliminate[s] penalty." [4] authorized outweigh[ed] [were] circumstances." 305. [5] assertion, "predominance tors" (dissenting opinion.). turned respective "con- sider[ing] giv[ing] evidence." 377 principle expounded rejection Boyde's [California instruction] 8.84.2 interfered considera- evidence"). "dictate[s] 3, (explaining 'mandatory' understood [v. (1976)] (1976)]" "[d]eath automatically murder"). [6] Additionally, reading isolation. reading, contrary well-established judged artificial isolation, viewed overall charge.'" 378 (1990) Boyd 271 104, 107 (1926)). context. disengaged §21-4624(e). [7] Punishment? 127-132, 134, Comment, Bedau-Radelet 126-145 (examining literature); Innocence, 508 ( "[w]ords 'innocence' convey enormous intended drive public appealing deep universal revulsion idea genuinely blame- involvement"); 365, 371 ("[w]hile proof"). observes Congress initially authorizes, allowed rejecting 3-4, unsurprising immate- rial. original clashes governmental small Government. (In 1789, Judiciary Act passed, Bill Rights adopted, Barron ex rel. Tiernan Mayor Baltimore, Pet. 243 (1833).) contemplate history assuredly awarding preference (who Rights), "during 100 omission remedy 1889 beyond." R. Stern, E. Gressman, Shapiro, Geller, Practice 66 (8th ed. 2002). plain. 1988 forming position. petition review. Not proposed defendants' advantage. imposes aggravators. disallow scheme, could, freely admits, mere preponderance mitigators. Tr. Oral Rearg. 36. counsel trade. "preponderance" sounds better, surely commonly recognized "[m]any European abol- ished Bibas, Transparency Participation Criminal Procedure, 81 911, 931-932 932, 88. Abolishing joining Council Europe, obtaining eco- nomic Union. Waters, Mediating Norms Identity: Role Transnational Judicial Dialogue Creating Enforcing International Law, 93 Geo. 487, 525 (2005); Demleitner, Future Leniency Crimi- nal System? 103 Mich. 1231, 1256, 88 (2005). Union advocates America; page website Delegation http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/deathpenhome.htm visited 17, available Clerk file). Justices (including today) narrowing Virginia, 317, 21 (2002) (citing, community," Amicus Curiae). Callins 510 1141, 1158, (1994) (Black- mun, denial certiorari) ("Innocent executed, Miscarriages Poten- tially 21, 36, 173-179 (1987), recently, 390 scheme"). [*] SCALIA takes approach, suggesting interests vindicated weighty Ante, 2-5 opinion). doing, overlooks ensuring viola- Constitutionan entirely absent petitioner. appropriateand certainly impartial, 4-5to urgent need "to perceived "primary decisions," First coming Unconcerned SCALIA's "crazy quilt," [there] drawn exercised repugnant constitution, treaties laws favour validity." 24, §25, 85 added). 1914 jurisdic- arguably overprotected expense laws. Dec. 23, 1914, ch. 790; Delaware Van Arsdall, 475 673, 694-697 upheld (1982 ed.). words, 1789 1988, enacted placed issue. ambiguous point; Arizona's prove, "by leniency," quantify "sufficiently substantial." 687 cried foul Stare control emphasizes inconsis- fact. (noting apart men, "broader review" discloses "were proc- ess"). importantly, cursory men demonstrably grossly unreliable one, notes "two subsequently Wisconsin of" murders. 8. others, "DNA tests revealed source semen victim. fessed pleaded prison, third tried crime." an- other, "another confessed [the man] convicted. currently serving 9. normally render. (1999). Several obtained acquittals, charges dropped, receiving orders trials. least executive. release custody forgo forum vacating sense: conclusive. study: "As term, 'exoneration' official declaring previously studied ways: forty-two governors (or officers) issued pardons 263 dismissed emerged, DNA. (3) thirty-one role originally (4) posthumously acknowledged died 524 (footnote exclude "any dismissal acquittal appears play conduct. purposes, involuntary manslaughter, exonerated. excluded strong whichdespite evidencethere unexplained physical guilt." Ibid., 4.

Category: 0