Legal Document

484 U.S. 231 108 S.Ct. 546 98 L.Ed.2d 568 Leslie LOWENFIELD, Petitionerv.C. Paul PHELPS, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Corrections, et al. No. 86-6867. Argued Oct. 14, 1987. Decided Jan. 13, 1988. Rehearing Denied March 7, See 485 1126, 1126. Syllabus At petitioner's state-court trial on charges killing five people, the jury returned guilty verdicts three counts first-degree murder, an essential statutory element which, under circumstances, was a finding intent "to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon more than one person." penalty phase, in response to notes from indicating difficulty reaching decision, court twice polled as whether further deliberations would be helpful verdict, majority jurors answering affirmatively each instance. After second poll, judge reiterated earlier instructions, declaring that he impose sentence life imprisonment without benefit probation, parole, suspended if were unable reach unanimous recommendation, and admonishing them consult consider other's views with objective but not surrender their own honest beliefs doing so. Defense counsel did object either manner which they conducted, supplemental instruction. The then verdict 30 minutes, sentencing petitioner death all murder aggravating circumstance "knowingly creat[ing] risk Supreme Court upheld convictions sentences, Federal District denied him habeas corpus relief Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. When considered context two polls charge impermissibly coerce return sentence. is similar traditional Allen long approved by this ground it attempt secure unanimity, reasoning applies even greater force here since does speak specifically minority jurors. Although constitutional weight, fact purposes served such charge—the avoidance societal costs retrial—is present because law requires hung, render impermissible Due Process Clause Eighth Amendment light State's strong interest having capital juries express conscience community ultimate question death. Jenkins v. United States, 380 445, 85 1059, 13 957 (1965), States Gypsum Co., 438 422, 2864, 57 854 (1978), cannot aid instruction given case require decision. Similarly, Brasfield 272 448, 47 135, 71 L.Ed. 345 (1926), help petitioner, questions asked reveal nature extent its division merits. coercion suggested soon after receiving instruction, defense counsel's failure at time indicates potential for argued now apparent. Pp. 237-241. 2. violate simply single "aggravating circumstance" found duplicates underlying offense murder. To pass muster, scheme must "genuinely narrow class persons eligible reasonably justify imposition severe defendant compared others murder." Zant Stephens, 462 862, 877, 103 2733, 2742, 77 235 (1983); cf. Gregg Georgia, 428 153, 96 2909, 49 859 (1976). This narrowing function may constitutionally provided ways: legislature broadly define offenses provide findings circumstances most have done, itself definition so guilt phase responds concern, has done here. Jurek Texas, 262, 2950, 929 Thus, duplicative infirm, mandated performed Constitution additional phase. 241-246. 817 F.2d 285, REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined, Part III except last thereof, STEVENS, J., joined. MARSHALL, filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, I post, p. 246. David Klingsberg, New York City, petitioner. John M. Mamoulides, Gretna, La., respondents. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 Petitioner, sentenced state courts, makes federal attacks his He first contends coerced inquiries made gave following receipt communication body. Petitioner's contention violates merely convicted stage. We reject both these contentions. 2 * Petitioner charged woman whom had lived, members her family, male friends. manslaughter murder; latter intended La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 14:30A(3) (West 1986). 3 STEVENS joins 4 commenced same day guilt, judge's included familiar admonition should also possibility suspension 5 allowed retire late evening, reconvene next day. During afternoon note came foreman stating decision time, requesting again advise responsibilities. called back. piece paper juror write name answer "further obtaining verdict." complied, room. papers revealed eight answers affirmative—that deliberation four negative. renewed previously motion mistrial, arguing obviously hung. motion, noting sign trouble directed agreed courtroom instructed obligations verdict. 6 new judge. stated some misunderstood asked. using method changing slightly; asked, "Do you feel any will enable arrive verdict?" App. 55. 11 answered affirmative reinstructed jury: 7 "Ladies Gentlemen, unanimously agree recommendation shall Life Imprisonment Probation, Parole, Suspension Sentence. 8 "When enter room your duty another discuss evidence just can do violence individual judgment. 9 "Each decide yourself only discussion impartial consideration fellow You are advocates side other. Do hesitate reexamine change convinced wrong belief weight effect solely mere purpose returning Id., 56. 10 resumed minutes In support La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 905.4(d) 1984). One additionally supported "the victim witness prosecution against defendant. . ." 905.4(h). On direct appeal, sentences. State Lowenfield, 495 So.2d 1245 (1985), cert. denied, 476 1153, 106 2259, 90 704 (1986). ruled insufficient defendant, concluded remaining established sufficient So.2d, 1256-1258. went hold abused discretion declining declare mistrial during when indicated "This rejected construction required deadlock trouble." 1259. Finally, argument recommendations jury. "It well settled proposition informed agreeing, error impress importance case, urge come agreement, send back deliberation." Ibid. 12 Subsequently sought Eastern Louisiana. raised, inter alia, issues before Court: validly rest necessary divided panel Fifth Circuit 285 (1987). claim. 289. conclude: "there no showing coercion; record certainly demonstrate fundamentally unfair." 293. combination polling usefulness constituted improper coercion. 299-303. II Our review improperly we "in circumstances." 446, 1060, (1965) (per curiam ). use been sanctioned. Nearly century ago 164 492, 17 154, 41 528 (1896), reviewed means identical here, reversible within system. Judge Parker Western Arkansas, exercising jurisdiction unique among courts. set out verbatim differed urged majority, ask themselves reasonable circumstances. conviction defendant's claim coercion, saying: 14 "The very system unanimity comparison views, arguments themselves. It listen deference distrust judgment, finds large taking different view what himself. go blind determination represent moment; or, close ears men who equally intelligent himself." 501-502, S.Ct., 157. 15 continuing validity Court's observations beyond dispute, apply this, where given, contrast so-called "traditional charge," jurors.1 But provides hangs, imprisonment. Crim.Proc.Ann., 905.8 naturally urges difference Amendment. between weighs calculus, find dispositive. proceeding "express death." Witherspoon Illinois, 391 510, 519, 88 1770, 1775, 20 776 (1968). Surely hour failed achieve ballot, incontestably authority insist deliberate further. true cases Allen, though mindful "qualitative other penalties calls degree reliability imposed." Lockett Ohio, 586, 604, 2954, 2964, 973 (1978). 16 relies supra,2 think affords help. There sent verdict; instructions jury, course said: " 'You got case.' U.S., 1060. statement coercive attributed it." language used there sufficiently obvious show fallacy reliance. colloquy 459, 2884, relies. argues, however, exacerbated court. had, stalled, inquired how divided, stood nine three. subsequently defendants guilty. inquiry into jury's numerical necessitated reversal generally almost always brought bear degree, serious although measurable, influence jury." 450, 136. exercise supervisory powers,3 nonetheless instructive dangers polling. 18 fit instant facts holding is, unavailing. Here merits might assist reason why those necessarily conclude helpful, otherwise. clearly independent another. believe type exactly implicitly stated: "[An division] serves useful attained requiring division." 19 suggests supra, 462, 2886. note, suggest thereby waived issue, Wainwright Witt, 469 412, 431, n. 11, 105 844, 855-856, 83 841 omission apparent spot.4 430-431, 855, 11. "coercive" way deny right. By mean understood saying combinations conclusion. Any criminal especially being tried entitled uncoerced For reasons 21 advances vacating sole crime convicted. overlap left free repeat thus death-eligible murderers. Upon punishment decisions argument. 22 grades homicide: second-degree manslaughter, negligent homicide, vehicular homicide. 14:29 Second-degree includes intentional felony parole. 14:30.1.5 defines include narrower homicides: "First human being: 23 "(1) offender specific engaged perpetration attempted aggravated kidnapping, escape, arson, rape, burglary, armed robbery, simple robbery; 24 "(2) fireman peace officer performance lawful duties; 25 "(3) person; 26 "(4) offered, received anything value killing; 27 "(5) age twelve years." 14:30A. 28 An separate 14:30C. "A imposed unless doubt least exists and, mitigating recommends 905.3 905.4.6 If returns death, automatically reviewable excessiveness 905.9. 29 14:30.A.(3): "[T]he knowingly created 905.4(d). provisions interpreted "parallel fashion" law. Williams, 480 721, 726-727 (La.1985). parallel sentences aside rests mistaken premise role Under laws 162-164, (reviewing Georgia scheme); Proffitt Florida, 242, 247-250, 2960, 2964-2965, 913 (1976) Florida scheme). so, narrows according legislative definition. Zant, 878, 2743 ("[S]tatutory play stage definition: circumscribe penalty"). 31 pursuant statute, guiding body discretion, apart penalty." 874, 2741. deficiency requires. 32 circumstances" end itself, genuinely channeling discretion. see (1976), establishes point. Texas like narrowly defined categories murders could imposed. acts deliberate, probably constitute threat society, raised evidence, unreasonable victim's provocation. 269, 2955. elements aspects characteristics perpetrator, therefore 271-274, 2956-2957. announcing judgment noted scheme, hand, schemes discussed Gregg, Proffitt, supra: 33 "While adopted list existence action ever much purpose. fact, classes statute encompassed essence, So far concerned, therefore, principal available option—even potentially—for smaller Texas." 270-271, 2955-2956 (citations omitted). 34 seems clear us regime offenses, 876, discussing concluding: "[I]n prosecution." 35 Here, "narrowing function" provision addition part process, duplicated make infirm. murderers allows more. 36 accordingly 37 Affirmed. 38 BRENNAN joins, I, dissenting. 39 Adhering my cruel unusual prohibited Fourteenth Amendments, 231-241, 2973-2977, (MARSHALL, dissenting), vacate below insofar undisturbed case. 40 Even view, reasons. First, Lowenfield subjected practices courts viewed less sensitive situations. presents unacceptable nothing proper considerations. Second, absence stand based offense. duplication prevented Louisiana's adequately relieved requisite sense responsibility As recognized frequently past, failings biasing process favor violation Amendments. many hours deliberations, "having distress" 17. Had remained deadlocked, operation presiding intervened intervention coercive. 42 Two principles guide our evaluation recognizing "impartiality" difficult "coercion" event discern concrete situations, careful focus particular order assess "all surrounding progress unanimity. often acknowledged demands sentencings proceedings. See, e.g., (1978) (opinion Burger, joined Stewart, Powell, JJ.); Woodson North Carolina, 280, 305, 2978, 2991, 944 JJ.). 43 pays lip-service concerns, citing relevant portions ignore teachings. offers sanitized rendition facts, ignoring glossing over examination proceeding. performs mechanical cramped application precedents regarding essentially restricting facts. Moreover, focuses impact challenged practice isolation, never addressing cumulative effect. neglects affects forged contexts. sum, approach fails take seriously challenge consequently recognize force. condone issue renders hollow pronouncement man deserves live die scales deliberately tipped toward 521-522, 20, 1776-1777, 44 starting point keep promise examine circumstances," failing mention several significant events evaluating court's conduct influenced treats irrelevant preceding administration charge. (1896). trial, immediately preceded shaped collective mind relationship innocence lasted days. deliberation, experiencing "much requested physical evidence. 16. refused request "I (emphasis added). objected objection "residual effect" process. 51. p.m., hour's break conducting hearing sending 8:17 p.m. These anxious reached quickly. That impression when, 11:55 total court, permission night, inquired: "Is continue deliberating tonight 48. background, ignores, important understanding reaction procedures modified 45 commencement result rather hearing, observe repeated times asking responded affirmatively. helpful. giving reiteration consequences poll verdict-urging expression reluctance 46 Third, refusal Hyde 225 347, 793, 56 1114 (1912), relying 'they conscientiously freely discharged.' 382, 808. "[i]t hard expressly them, confinement acquit convict innocent." 383, decided runs stronger. None above recounted up "totality" Both administered examined individually whole. 48 quick work Observing helpfulness "clearly independent" stance merits, concludes pollings 'reveal division.' Ante, 240 (quoting 136, (1926)). Such conclusion accurate ordinary setting, hung leads retrial. ignores repeatedly With background knowledge, juror's vote acceptance follow. substantive division. Not refuse acknowledge condemned Brasfield, ways worse Brasfield. once, twice, increasing whatever had. whittled down 1, creating enormous pressure lone holdout, identify polls, exposing identities posed "improper jury" 50 treatment similarly dismissive. begins suggesting "beyond dispute," Circuits form upheld. 237—238, sweeping denigrates reservations expressed federal1 state2 concerning reservations, voiced trials, significance usual justifications expense, possible loss entail. resulted steer likely acquittal. inevitably likely, continued achieved outcome hearing. considerations indicate relatively weak, whereas preserving integrity correspondingly strong. general about coerciveness special attention 51 persistently refuses posture Instead, blandly factually distinguishable cases, analysis, called, animating principle Gypsum: statements actions insisting 'one other,' 460, 2885, message poses Just knew, indeed instructed, 52 analytical failure, lies piecemeal fashion. Content contravene satisfied considers tandem. Other heels risks Sae-Chua, 725 530, 532 (CA9 1984); Cornell Iowa, 628 1044, 1048, (CA8 1980), 449 101 944, 67 112 (1981); Williams 119 D.C. 190, 193, 338 533 (1964). followed charge, inherently conveyed revelation prompted subsequent jurors." pared juror, identified name. feeling alone. together atmosphere alone possibly engendered. strongly evidenced charge.3 53 open closer deemed context. Term entirely appropriate contexts Booth Maryland, 482 496, 509, 12, 107 2529, 2536, 440 legitimacy practices. troubling sentencings, dangerous. moral die. Despite factors introduced jurors' theirs largely subjective Given amorphous volatile inquiry, impasse particularly prone concern me "inconsistent reasoned decisionmaking cases." 2536 (footnote 54 still stand. prior preclude insisted sentencer guided people fully cognizant violated 55 Since Furman 408 238, 92 2726, 346 (1972), "meaningful basis distinguishing few [the sentence] not." 313, 2764 (WHITE, concurring). held consistently making distinctions. McCleskey Kemp, 481 279, 1756, 1774, 95 262 (1987) (describing discretion"); (1983) (holding "an penalty"); 197, 2936 JJ.) (explaining helps sentence"). today emphasis happenstance holds critical distinct process.4 misunderstands requirement. technical requirement number offenders itself" are. ante, 244. Rather, emphasized consistently, meant channel sentencer. forces task structured, step-by-step way, determining imposition. conceivable structuring deliberations. permitting removal altogether, reduces formality unrelated choice relegation implicates concerns Caldwell Mississippi, 472 320, 2633, 86 (1985). Caldwell, vacated prosecutor appellate correctness, concluding "it led appropriateness elsewhere." 328-329, 2639. eligibility already phase—findings arrived contemplation implication Indeed, start deliberations: "You discuss, whatsoever." Record 2283. Then, reminded applicable 2311, 2319. prosecutor's hence penalty. situation squared ensure "a recognizes gravity proceeds awareness 'truly awesome responsibility.' 341, 2646. 58 one, complete tilt easier convincing unaware Then penalty, remind doubt. enters across threshold eligibility, crossed line. proceedings early entrust tribunal organized 521, 1776 59 continuous sentence, "great distress." broken deadlock, May 16, 1984, Lowenfield's delicately balance. impossible know finally key Neither place presence convinces individualized promises him. dissent. All Courts Angiulo, (CA1 1973); Burke, 700 70, 80 (CA2), 464 816, 104 72, 78 Fioravanti, 412 407, 414-420 (CA3), sub nom. Panaccione 396 837, 97, (1969); Sawyers, 423 1335 (CA4 1970); Kelly, 783 575, 576-577 (CA5), 479 889, 288, 93 (1986); Scott, 547 334 (CA6 1977); Silvern, 879 (CA7 1973) (en banc); Potter 691 1275 1982); Bonam, 772 1449, 1450 1985); McKinney, 822 946 (CA10 1987); Rey, 811 1453 (CA11), 830, 103, 63 (1987); Thomas, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 101, 1177 (1971) banc). ruling power Hale, 422 171, 180, 2133, 2139, 99 (1975), grounds. cited Constitution, relied involving powers. provision. uniformly notion Brasfield's per se reviewing corpus. E.g., Parke, 741 847, 851 1984), 470 1029, 1399, 84 787 (1985); Locks Sumner, 703 403, 405-407 (CA9), 933, 338, 307 (1983). motions referred dissent, 254, 3, court—the instruction—that core dissent's attack, dissuaded objecting unsuccessful motions. "Second harm; harm." 14.30.1 circumstances: "(a) "(b) "(c) kidnapping history activity; "(d) "(e) offered commission offense; "(f) imprisoned forcible felony; "(g) committed heinous, atrocious, manner; "(h) material assistance investigation eyewitness alleged possessed defendant; "(i) correctional employee Corrections who, normal employment contact incarcerated prison facility, duties offense." La.Code 905.4 1453, 1458, 1460 (CA11) ("The modern judicial trend charge." "As it, interferes performing role: unjustifiably increases innocent person abandoning honestly-held beliefs"), Blandin, 784 1050 1986) ("We permissible Tenth Circuit, caution use. deliberations"); Seawell, 550 1159, 1162, 1163 1977) ("Problems arising caused appeals prohibit restrict severely use." more, stands brink coercion"). (footnotes People Gainer, Cal.3d 835, 139 Cal.Rptr. 861, 566 P.2d 997 (1977) (banning cases); Czachor, 82 N.J. 392, 413 A.2d 593 (1980) (same); Kersey State, 525 S.W.2d (Tenn.1975) (same). argues "apparent." 240. acknowledge, moved phase: once hours, 8-to-4 renewing confusion distress. met dicta Legislature serve 'much purpose' 245 270, 2955 JJ.)). later recognition establish determined Skipper South 5, 1669, 1671, (1986) ("[E]vidence future pose danger executed treated establishing 'aggravating factor' sentencing"); Adams 448 38, 46, 100 2521, 2527, 65 581 (In affirmatively, "must appearing presented proceedings"). Hence, approval divorce advanced evaluated Jurek, explicitly 522 934, 938 (Tex.Crim.App.1975).

Classification Label: 0