Legal Document

532 U.S. 782121 S.Ct. 1910150 L.Ed.2d 9 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.JOHNNY PAUL PENRY, PETITIONERv.GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION No. 00-6677. SUPREME COURT THE UNITED STATES Argued March 27, 2001Decided June 4, 2001 Syllabus In 1989, this held petitioner Penry had been sentenced death violation Eighth Amendment. At close penalty hearing during Penry's first Texas capital murder trial, jury was instructed answer three statutorily mandated "special issues": (1) whether conduct committed deliberately and with reasonable expectation would result; (2) it probable he a continuing threat society; (3) killing unreasonable response provocation by deceased. Although offered extensive evidence mentally retarded severely abused as child, never told could consider give mitigating effect imposing sentence. holding not adequately respect evidence, found, among things, none special issues broad enough allow evidence. v. Lynaugh, 492 302 (1989) (Penry I). When retried 1990, again found guilty murder. During phase, defense put on regarding mental impairments childhood abuse. On direct examination defense, clinical neuropsychologist, Dr. Price, testified believed suffered from organic brain impairment retardation. cross-examination, Price cited one records reviewed preparing his testimony psychiatric evaluation prepared Peebles 1977 at request then-counsel determine competency stand trial an earlier charge unrelated issue. Over objection, recited portion which stated Peebles' professional if were released, dangerous others. came time submit case jury, court sentence answering same issue I. The then gave "supplemental instruction": "[W]hen you deliberate ... issues, circumstances, any, supported . If find [such] circumstances , must decide how much weight they deserve, therefore, consideration them assessing defendant's personal culpability determine, when giving life sentence, reflected negative finding under consideration, rather than appropriate [Penry's] should given issues." verdict form itself, however, contained only text two choices each: "Yes" "No." Because unanimously answered "yes" each issue, accordance state law. affirming, Criminal Appeals rejected claims admission language report violated Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, instructions constitutionally inadequate because did permit particular With latter, supplemental instruction met I's constitutional requirements. After petition for habeas corpus relief denied, petitioned federal 28 U.S.C. 2254. District appellate court's conclusions both neither contrary to, nor application of, clearly established Circuit denied certificate appealability. Held: 1. argument unavailing into referring future dangerousness self-incrimination. distinguishable Estelle Smith, 451 454, psychiatrist's topic dangerousness, based uncounseled statements, need does several respects differs affect merits claim. Rather, question decision "contrary to" "unreasonable application" Court's precedent. 2254(d)(1); see Williams Taylor, 529 362. It not. differences between substantial, suggested its limited "distinct circumstances" presented there. U.S., 466. also indicated analysis might different where defendant introduces phase. Id., 472. Indeed, has extended Estelle's beyond facts. Cf., e.g., Buchanan Kentucky, 483 402. therefore cannot said objectively conclude entitled See Williams, supra, 409. Even precedent establish squarely use Amendment, error justify overturning substantial injurious influence determining jury's verdict. E.g., Brecht Abrahamson, 507 619, 637. There considerable doubt make such showing. excerpt last expert heard posed danger no means key State's dangerousness. Pp. 9-12. 2. resentencing, comply mandate To extent I satisfied merely given, misapprehended prior decision. able "consider [a mitigating] sentence." 319. concluded substance resentencing I, determination unreasonable. submitted identical ones mentioned mechanism purported create jurors ineffective illogical. doubt, "no" there "yes. " listed and, mention confirmed clarified view, ignore these clear guidelines and-even fact matter inquired about-answer warranted words, change more truthful answers untruthful avoid Penry. thereby whole internally contradictory, placed law-abiding impossible situation. comments prosecutor counsel, well voir dire, little clarify confusion caused themselves. Any realistic assessment manner operated lead conclusion reached I: "[A] juror have vehicle expressing view deserve upon evidence." 326. 12-20. 215 F.3d 504, affirmed part, reversed remanded. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT O'Connor, J., delivered Court, Parts II, III-A unanimous, Part III-B joined Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, JJ. Thomas, filed concurring part dissenting Rehnquist, Scalia, joined. Opinion Justice O'Connor Court. 1 we Johnny Paul State him death. We now complied our statements interview ran afoul 2 * brutally raped murdered Pamela Carpenter October 25, 1979. 1980, hearing, 3 '(1) deceased another 4 '(2) probability commit criminal acts violence constitute 5 '(3) raised provocation, deceased.' 310 (quoting Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 37.071(b) (Vernon 1981 Supp. 1989)). 6 required statute, 310-311. 7 320. Nor scope 322-325. While retardation potentially relevant issue-whether acted deliberately-we way sure fully considered bore broader moral culpability. 322-323. As second danger-the history abuse "relevant aggravating factor." 323 (emphasis original). And simply third issue- unreasonably responded provocation. 324-325. 8 counsel failed role. Defense urged vote Penry, prosecutor, reminded their "oath follow law answe[r] questions following law." 325 (internal quotation marks omitted). "In light prosecutor's argument, absence informing background declining impose penalty," "a 326, 328. thus vacated confirming case, "[t]he sentencer [mitigating] sentence," so 'the imposed reflec[ts] reasoned background, character, crime.' 319 California Brown, 479 538, 545 (1987) (O'Connor, concurring) original)). 10 1990 One witness Randall neuropsychologist. examination, App. 276-279; 878. course cross-examining asked what testimony. 14 reports, including Felix May 19, 1977. 327. rape charge-unrelated Carpenter. 55-60, 125. read specific jury. objection "professional released custody, persons." 413. closing argument. 668. 11 issues-the Specifically, killed Carpenter; future; 676-678. Cf. 12 those issues: "[B]efore 'Yes,' all convinced 'Yes.' [I]f juror, after considering instructions, Special Issue 'No' Issue." 672-673. 13 explained consequences decision: "[I]f return affirmative you, shall You further Department Corrections life. your punishment assessed court, reflective defendant, JOHNNY case." 674-675. 15 "You phases defendant. A circumstance include, but aspect character record crime believe inappropriate case. 675. 16 complete copy attached form, took entire packet deliberation room. Tr. Oral Arg. 31. issue: "We, least ten (10) about Issue, 'No.' 17 deliberating approximately 21/2 hours, returned 51 Record 1948, 1950. signed agreed "yes." law, 18 conviction claim examined years Carpenter, "confronted someone who essentially agent whose function gather used connection incarcerated." State, 903 S. W. 2d 715, 759-760 (1995) citation 19 sentencing proposition proffers "mitigating relevance 2d, 765. Quoting 5-6, overruled error. nullification sufficient meet requirements [Penry I]." 20 1998, 841 (trial order); id., 863 (Court order), writ pursuant 2254 (1994 ed. V) Southern Texas. claims, Appeals' points 893, 920. full briefing 504 (2000). 21 stayed execution granted certiorari arguments adequacy instructions. 531 1010 II 22 enactment Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996, provisions govern review. 2254(d)(1) ed., prohibits granting adjudicated unless adjudication "resulted involved Federal determined States." 23 Last Term 362 (2000), clauses independent meaning. 404. will either "applies rule contradicts governing set forth cases," "confronts facts materially indistinguishable nevertheless arrives result precedent." 405-406. of" "correctly identifies legal applies prisoner's 407-408. 24 making 'unreasonable application' inquiry ask unreasonable." Distinguishing incorrect even concludes applied incorrectly, 410-411. 25 evaluated disposition standard later 882 (stating 'only can jurists ruling incorrect' (citation omitted)), articulated proper review, relief. Guided standard, turn claims. III 26 contends referred self-incrimination warned him. disagreed, concluding interviewed acting 759. 27 argues 454 (1981). Estelle, situation psychiatrist conducted ostensibly neutral drew prosecution crucial likened "an recounting unwarned postarrest custodial setting," "[a] initiates attempts introduce compelled respond proceeding." 467-468. respects. First, condition 457, n. 1, whereas himself status central trials Carpenter's Second, called chosen examining psychiatrist. 456-457. Here, own exam performed Peebles. Third, testify 459. cross-examination psychological elicited report. fourth, charged exam, sentencing. yet 29 do V). think "intends phase." 402 (Estelle apply, violate uses portions rebut trial). say 30 prosecution's 'had verdict.' 637 (1993) Kotteakos 328 750, 776 (1946)). unlikely 31 bolstered danger, point. Four prison officials "would society." 94, 104, 138; 47 970. Three psychiatrists individual likely remain so. Two witnesses. 487, 557. Price-the whom Before recitation, "[i]f [Penry] free world, dangerous." 392. 32 effective rhetorical tool, violence. report, erroneous, "substantial effect" Accordingly, disturb rejection B 33 comport provide disagreed. summarized mandate. Ibid. 34 rationale entirely clear. hand, virtue given. 35 latter seems likely, former, hold mere satisfies inform "consider" deciding added). Johnson Texas, 509 350, 381 dissenting) ("[A] [must] allowed For "vehicle 'reasoned response' rendering decision," 328, "has treated 'uniquely human bein[g]' reliable Woodson North Carolina, 428 280, 304, 305 (1976)). 36 provided requisite admittedly "less artful" says: 37 "If 675 Brief Respondent 16. 38 possible ways interpret confusing instruction. italicized above indicate, understood telling take account Viewed light, better position words Judge Dennis below, ability still "shackled confined within F.3d, 514 (dissenting opinion). Thus, practical effect, meaningfully 39 Alternatively, urges, understand "simply 'no' regardless initial questions." appeared sense, termed "nullification instruction." assuming operate way, simple implement contends. 40 "by doubt." 672. 673. swear "beyond Or Issue" "determin[ed] 41 42 generally presume See, Richardson Marsh, 481 200, 211 (1987). logically ethically sets fit prescribed necessarily meant ignoring command mode wanted falsely oath render 'true 35.22 1989). 43 created inserted element capriciousness" decision, "making jurors' power dependent willingness" elevate over Roberts Louisiana, 325, 335 (1976) (plurality is, very least, likelihood challenged prevent[ed] consideration" Boyde California, 494 370, 380 (1990). 44 though focused solely affirming urges us evaluate contextually, reference dire. approach would-with "commonsense understanding taken place trial." 381. itself illustrates methodology, prosecutor. 325-326. there, insufficient 45 Voir dire month-long process, 90 prospective interviewed. (index transcripts). Many veniremembers-including eventually empaneled-received largely similar ultimately instruction, judge attempted explain worked. 966-967 ("[I]f thought might, really felt [to issues] yes, get penalty"). 980 ("[E]ven [you] don't person happened past [The] belief no"). most jurors, explanation. 1018 believe[d] [there] [could] apply mitigation answer-going back changing yes 46 reinforce construction bolster confidence highlight arbitrary operated, false Moreover, skeptical that, phase deliberations began, remembered explanations less binding statement began almost months deliberations. interim, observed rest listened 5-day guilt-phase participated hours guilt, punishment. surely distant convoluted memory 48 matters. describe task: "If, child abuse, guy deserves then, no. question, answer, literally correct yes. Not easiest funny things sometimes." 640. 49 Again, explanation dishonestly reasons discussed above, "clarification" real help. adequate substitute 384, effectively neutralized counsel's stressing duty "[t]o oath, 616. best, received mixed signals. 50 Our guidance drafted specifically concerns alleviated defining term "deliberately" "in bears culpability." 323. effect. definitions refused give. 12, 14-15. catchall Texas' current scheme (revised sentencing) provides helpful frame reference. requires "[w]hether, taking offense, warrant imprisonment imposed." Proc., 37.071(2)(e)(1) 2001).* while conceding admitted tough saying I] new procedure." brevity clarity nature actually indicate alternatives available trial. 52 Shafer South ___, ___ (2001) (slip op., 2, 12) (holding review Carolina "incorrectly limited" Simmons 512 154 (1994), mischaracterized "how [capital sentencing] works"). accomplished clarification. 53 judgment remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 54 ordered. NOTES: Another recent development passage bill banning persons. Babineck, Perry: Death-penalty measure needs analyzing, Dallas Morning News, 31, 2001, p. 27A. press, Governor Rick Perry process sign bill. 55 Chief Scalia join, III-A, III-B. 56 juries deliberated brutal warrants opinions decisions ground courts alleged opportunity presented, respectfully dissent. 57 reviewing propose ideal related status. job simpler, significantly removed writing instance. Appeals-that explaining value I-was "objectively 362, 409 58 sentencing, sentencing.1 instruct "it offer instead reiterated "[i]n 59 issues. contrast length proffered ante, 5-6. "allow[ed] [the jury] "sufficient I]."2 765 (1995). my precedents common sense. 60 evaluating should] engage technical parsing 'commonsense trial.' 368 (1990)). or, parsing, tells makes inappropriate, Given straightforward reading reasonable, eminently logical, 61 true neatly law.3 But uncertain terms precisely directive ("[W]hen case"). Next, ("If issue"). finally, unambiguously instructed: Without performing acrobatics, confusing. certainly contortions necessary unreasonable."4 share depending answer. 62 Curiously, "inserted 'an capriciousness' 'making willingness' instructions." Ante, opinion)). Roberts, wholly misplaced. lesser included unsupported want 334-335. suggestion, express implied, disregard contrary, Tellingly, plurality "[t]here capriciousness willingness accept invitation judge's 63 Finally, "mixed signals," 18, appears Jurek 262 (1976), upheld statute here attack Fourteenth Amendments. joint permits "to whatever bring it" "guides focuses objective particularized offense offender death." 273-274 (opinion Stewart, Powell, JJ.). Then, purporting distinguish, overrule, Jurek, permitting 355-356 (Scalia, (explaining Jurek's conclusions). According necessary. today's second-guessed decided sufficient. are: 302, suggestion substance, satisfy requirement, specious. "jury evidence;" quoted instruction; quite obvious content am bewildered why finds unconstitutional limit factors Graham Collins, 506 461, 478 (Thomas, concurring). address uphold look led 'in ha[d] (1993). closing: "[i]f, no," forgotten 17-18, assumption questionable presumptions remember see, Weeks Angelone, 528 225, 234 fresh minds. Despite assertion dishonestly, me reasonably honestly They 'oath, law,' ibid., statement, 616), truthfully next

Classification Label: 0