Court Opinion

ID: 9842053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 20:12:30.653855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:28.526947
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
dissenting.
No rule of law required the Court to hear this case. We granted certiorari only because at least four Members of the Court determined — as a matter of discretion — that review of the constitutionality of the so-called Briggs Instruction would represent a wise use of the Court’s scarce resources.
When certiorari was granted in this case, the Court had been informed by the respondent that the Briggs Instruction is unique: “Only California requires that juries be instructed selectively on the Governor’s power to commute life without parole sentences.” Further, the Court had been informed, accurately, that the overwhelming number of jurisdictions condemn any comment whatsoever in a capital case on the Governor’s power to commute. That statement was followed by a half-page list of citations to state-court decisions. Brief in Opposition 6-7. See ante, at 1026-1027 (Justice Marshall, dissenting). These facts shed an illuminating light on the Court’s perception of how its discretion should be exercised.
*1030Even if one were to agree with the Court’s conclusion that the instruction does not violate the defendant’s procedural rights, it would nevertheless be fair to ask what harm would have been done to the administration of justice by state courts if the California court had been left undisturbed in its determination. It is clear that omission of the instruction could not conceivably prejudice the prosecutor’s legitimate interests. Surely if the character of an offense and the character of the offender are such that death is the proper penalty, the omission of a comment on the Governor’s power to commute a life sentence would not preclude the jury from returning the proper verdict. If it were true that this instruction may make the difference between life and death in a case in which the scales are otherwise evenly balanced, that is a reason why the instruction should not be given — not a reason for giving it. For the existence of the rarely exercised power of commutation has absolutely nothing to do with the defendant’s culpability or his capacity for rehabilitation. The Governor’s power to commute is entirely different from any relevant aggravating circumstance that may legitimately impel the jury toward voting for the death penalty. See ante, at 1012. The Briggs Instruction has no greater justification than an instruction to the jury that if the scales are evenly balanced, you should remember that more murders have been committed by people whose names begin with the initial “S” than with any other letter.
No matter how trivial the impact of the instruction may be, it is fundamentally wrong for the presiding judge at the trial — who should personify the evenhanded administration of justice — to tell the jury, indirectly to be sure, that doubt concerning the proper penalty should be resolved in favor of the most certain method of preventing the defendant from ever walking the streets again.
The Court concludes its opinion by solemnly noting that we “sit as judges, not as legislators, and the wisdom of the decision to permit juror consideration of possible commutation is *1031best left to the States.” Ante, at 1014. Why, I ask with all due respect, did not the Justices who voted to grant certio-rari in this case allow the wisdom of state judges to prevail in California, especially when they have taken a position consistent with those of state judges in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming?
I repeat, no rule of law commanded the Court to grant cer-tiorari. No other State would have been required to follow the California precedent if it had been permitted to stand. Nothing more than an interest in facilitating the imposition of the death penalty in California justified this Court’s exercise of its discretion to review the judgment of the California Supreme Court. That interest, in my opinion, is not sufficient to warrant this Court’s review of the validity of a jury instruction when the wisdom of giving that instruction is plainly a matter that is best left to the States.
For the reasons stated in Parts II to V of Justice Marshall’s opinion, I disagree with the Court’s decision on the merits. But even if the Court were correct on the merits, I would still firmly disagree with its decision to grant certio-rari. I therefore respectfully dissent.