Legal Document

Cite as: 563 U. S. ____ (2011) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DAVID BOBBY, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. HARRY MITTS ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 10–1000. Decided May 2, 2011 PER CURIAM. An Ohio jury convicted respondent Harry Mitts on two counts of aggravated murder and attempted murder. He was sentenced to death. At issue here is part the instructions given during penalty phase Mitts’s trial. The instructions, in pertinent part, were as follows: “[Y]ou must determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether aggravating circumstances, which [Mitts] found guilty committing separate counts, are sufficient outweigh mitigating factors you find present this case. “When all 12 members by proof be yond that circum stances each count with has been mitigat ing factors, if any, then return such finding Court. “I instruct matter law make finding, recommend Court sentence death imposed [Mitts]. . “On other hand, [if] after considering relevant evidence raised at trial, tes timony received hearing arguments counsel, state failed prove 2 BOBBY cir cumstances will proceed possible life imprisonment sentences Court.” App. Pet. for Cert. 352a–353a. We considered virtually same last Term Smith Spisak, 558 ___, ___ (2010) (slip op., 7). See Bagley, 620 F.3d 650, 652 (CA6 2010) (noting “instructions case in” Spisak). That case, like one, involved review federal ha beas petition under Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA). AEDPA provides, rele vant here, relief may not granted unless court adjudication “resulted decision con trary clearly established Federal law, determined Supreme United States.” 28 U.S. C. §2254(d)(1). In we reversed Appeals had these invalid our Mills Maryland, 486 367 (1988). S., 8–9). Up until also pressed claim Mills. After Spisak rejected claim, contrary Beck Alabama, 447 625 (1980), accordingly vacated sentence. F.3d, 658. Beck, held “when permitted consider verdict guilt lesser included non-capital offense, when would have supported verdict.” U.S., 627 (internal quotation marks omitted). explained scheme intolerably enhances 3 “risk an unwarranted conviction” because it “interjects irrelevant considerations into factfinding process, diverting jury’s attention from central State satisfied its burden proving defendant capital crime.” Id., 638, 642. “[F]orcing choose between conviction offense ac quittal,” observed, “may encourage convict impermissible reason—its belief some serious crime should punished,” even there “some respect ele ment” offense. 632, 642, 637. Be cause created danger resolve any doubts favor conviction, cluded violated due process. id., 643. According below, trial—and upholding their use—were “con to” they “interposed before false choice” holding prohibits. 658, 657 Referring “acquittal-first,” stated impermissibly required first decide “acquit” “mercy form imprisonment.” 656–657. Interpreting stand proposition “a instruction violates process requires mandatory sen tence can only avoided acquittal opportunity imprisonment,” concluded trial unconstitutionally “deprived meaningful sider” surely 4 Beck. concern addressed “the risk forced declaring him innocent wrongdoing. 637 (emphasis added); 638; see Spaziano Florida, 468 447, 455 (1984) (explaining “goal rule” “to eliminate distortion all-or-nothing choice innocence”); Schad Arizona, 501 624, 646 (1991) (“Our fundamental convinced defen dant committed violent but he might nonetheless vote alternative set free no punishment all”). question however, concerns phase, already logic directly applicable proceedings. California Ramos, 463 992 (1983), argument prohibited instruc tion sentencing regarding Governor’s power commute without possibility parole.” 994, 1006–1009. so doing, noted “fundamental difference nature guilt/innocence determination life/death phase.” 1007. light critical distinction, observed unwar ranted simply translatable deliberative engages determining appropriate penalty.” 1009; Schad, supra, 647 (stating “central cern implicated” “jury faced (capital murder) innocence”). 5 jurors could plausibly thought declined “escape penalties his alleged participation 629. They just specifi cally instructed did aggravat outweighed factors—and fore penalty—they options. There accord ingly reason believe unlike improperly influenced fear short resulted walking free. decided presented itself. rejecting contention Mills, unconstitu tional additional reason, ‘re quire[d] unanimously reject alternatives.’ ” 9) (quoting Mitchell, 465 684, 709 2006)). essentially here. 658 (holding imprisonment”). AEDPA, noting “[w]e previously unconstitutional reason.” 9). Although neither parties nor courts below cited concurrence struck down reliance decision. (Stevens, J., concurring concur ring judgment) 3–6). 6 whatever merits direct review, Spisak’s ‘clearly law’ AEDPA. conclusion applies certiorari motion leave forma pauperis granted. judgment Sixth Circuit Reversed.

Classification Label: 0