DOCSLIB.ORG

Victim Impact Evidence Had Guilt

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Victim Impact Evidence Had Guilt CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: RACE, POVERTY & DISADVANTAGE Yale University Professor Stephen B. Bright Class Four - Part Two VICTIM IMPACT A jury found Booth guilty of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of robbery, and EVIDENCE conspiracy to commit robbery. The prosecution requested the death penalty, and Booth elected to have his sentence determined by the jury instead John BOOTH, Petitioner of the judge. Before the sentencing phase began, v. the State Division of Parole and Probation (DPP) MARYLAND. compiled a presentence report that described Booth’s background, education and employment Supreme Court of the United States history, and criminal record. Under a Maryland 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529 (1987) statute, the presentence report in all felony cases also must include a victim impact statement (VIS), Powell, J., announced the opinion of the Court. describing the effect of the crime on the victim White, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which and his family. Specifically, the report shall: Rehnquist, C.J., O’Connor, and Scalia, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which with (i) Identify the victim of the offense; whom Rehnquist, C.J., White and O’Connor, JJ., joined. (ii) Itemize any economic loss suffered by the victim as a result of the offense; Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court. (iii) Identify any physical injury suffered by the victim as a result of the offense along with The question presented is whether the its seriousness and permanence; Constitution prohibits a jury from considering a “victim impact statement” during the sentencing (iv) Describe any change in the victim’s phase of a capital murder trial. personal welfare or familial relationships as a result of the offense; I. In 1983, Irvin Bronstein, 78, and his wife Rose, (v) Identify any request for psychological 75, were robbed and murdered in their West services initiated by the victim or the victim’s Baltimore home. The murderers, John Booth and family as a result of the offense; and Willie Reid, entered the victims’ home for the apparent purpose of stealing money to buy heroin. (vi) Contain any other information related to Booth, a neighbor of the Bronsteins, knew that the the impact of the offense upon the victim or elderly couple could identify him. The victims the victim’s family that the trial court were bound and gagged, and then stabbed requires. repeatedly in the chest with a kitchen knife. The bodies were discovered two days later by the Although the VIS is compiled by the DPP, the Bronsteins’ son. information is supplied by the victim or the Class 4 - Part 2 Victim Impact 1 Prof. Bright - Capital Punishment victim’s family. The VIS may be read to the jury The jury sentenced Booth to death for the during the sentencing phase, or the family murder of Mr. Bronstein and to life imprisonment members may be called to testify as to the for the murder of Mrs. Bronstein. * * * information. II The VIS in Booth’s case was based on * * * Although this Court normally will defer to interviews with the Bronsteins’ son, daughter, a state legislature’s determination of what factors son-in-law, and granddaughter. Many of their are relevant to the sentencing decision, the comments emphasized the victims’ outstanding Constitution places some limits on this discretion. personal qualities, and noted how deeply the Specifically, we have said that a jury must make Bronsteins would be missed. Other parts of the an “individualized determination” whether the VIS described the emotional and personal defendant in question should be executed, based problems the family members have faced as a on “the character of the individual and the result of the crimes. The son, for example, said circumstances of the crime.” * * * [A] state statute that he suffers from lack of sleep and depression, that requires consideration of other factors must and is “fearful for the first time in his life.” He be scrutinized to ensure that the evidence has said that in his opinion, his parents were some bearing on the defendant’s “personal “butchered like animals.” The daughter said she responsibility and moral guilt.” To do otherwise also suffers from lack of sleep, and that since the would create the risk that a death sentence will be murders she has become withdrawn and based on considerations that are “constitutionally distrustful. She stated that she can no longer impermissible or totally irrelevant to the watch violent movies or look at kitchen knives sentencing process.” without being reminded of the murders. The daughter concluded that she could not forgive the The VIS in this case provided the jury with two murderer, and that such a person could “[n]ever types of information. First, it described the be rehabilitated.” Finally, the granddaughter personal characteristics of the victims and the described how the deaths had ruined the wedding emotional impact of the crimes on the family. of another close family member that took place a Second, it set forth the family members’ opinions few days after the bodies were discovered. Both and characterizations of the crimes and the the ceremony and the reception were sad affairs, defendant. For the reasons stated below, we find and instead of leaving for her honeymoon, the that this information is irrelevant to a capital bride attended the victims’ funeral. The VIS also sentencing decision, and that its admission creates noted that the granddaughter had received a constitutionally unacceptable risk that the jury counseling for several months after the incident, may impose the death penalty in an arbitrary and but eventually had stopped because she concluded capricious manner. that “no one could help her.” A * * * * * * Defense counsel moved to suppress the VIS on While the full range of foreseeable the ground that this information was both consequences of a defendant’s actions may be irrelevant and unduly inflammatory, and that relevant in other criminal and civil contexts, we therefore its use in a capital case violated the cannot agree that it is relevant in the unique Eighth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. circumstance of a capital sentencing hearing. In The Maryland trial court denied the motion * * *. such a case, it is the function of the sentencing Booth’s lawyer then requested that the prosecutor jury to “express the conscience of the community simply read the VIS to the jury rather than call the on the ultimate question of life or death.” When family members to testify before the jury. * * * carrying out this task the jury is required to focus The prosecutor agreed to this arrangement. on the defendant as a “uniquely individual human Class 4 - Part 2 Victim Impact 2 Prof. Bright - Capital Punishment bein[g].” The focus of a VIS, however, is not on a decision to turn on the perception that the victim the defendant, but on the character and reputation was a sterling member of the community rather of the victim and the effect on his family. These than someone of questionable character.8 * * * factors may be wholly unrelated to the blameworthiness of a particular defendant. As our We also note that it would be difficult – if not cases have shown, the defendant often will not impossible – to provide a fair opportunity to rebut know the victim, and therefore will have no such evidence without shifting the focus of the knowledge about the existence or characteristics sentencing hearing away from the defendant. * * of the victim’s family. Moreover, defendants * Moreover, if the state is permitted to introduce rarely select their victims based on whether the evidence of the victim’s personal qualities, it murder will have an effect on anyone other than cannot be doubted that the defendant also must be the person murdered. Allowing the jury to rely on given the chance to rebut this evidence. Putting a VIS therefore could result in imposing the death aside the strategic risks of attacking the victim’s sentence because of factors about which the character before the jury, in appropriate cases the defendant was unaware, and that were irrelevant defendant presumably would be permitted to put to the decision to kill. This evidence thus could on evidence that the victim was of dubious moral divert the jury’s attention away from the character, was unpopular, or was ostracized from defendant’s background and record, and the his family. The prospect of a “mini-trial” on the circumstances of the crime. victim’s character is more than simply unappealing; it could well distract the sentencing It is true that in certain cases some of the jury from its constitutionally required task – information contained in a VIS will have been determining whether the death penalty is known to the defendant before he committed the appropriate in light of the background and record offense. As we have recognized, a defendant’s of the accused and the particular circumstances of degree of knowledge of the probable the crime. We thus reject the contention that the consequences of his actions may increase his presence or absence of emotional distress of the moral culpability in a constitutionally significant victim’s family, or the victim’s personal manner. We nevertheless find that because of the characteristics, are proper sentencing nature of the information contained in a VIS, it considerations in a capital case. creates an impermissible risk that the capital sentencing decision will be made in an arbitrary B manner. The second type of information presented to the jury in the VIS was the family members’ opinions As evidenced by the full text of the VIS in this and characterizations of the crimes. * * * case the family members were articulate and persuasive in expressing their grief and the extent * * * of their loss.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-41382 NAPOLEON BEAZLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, Versus GARY L. JOHNSON
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-41382 NAPOLEON BEAZLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas February 9, 2001 Before SMITH, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge: Included in the numerous issues before us, which primarily challenge the Texas death-penalty system, are several that concern whether Napoleon Beazley can be executed for committing a capital murder when he was almost, but not yet, age 18. Such effect vel non of Beazley’s age, however, is not included in the one issue (standard of review) for which the district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA). Restated, the certified issue is the only one before us on the merits; for the specific age- related issues, we must first decide whether a COA should be granted for any of them. The certified issue concerns the appropriate federal habeas standard of review, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), for state court judgments; fortunately, that standard was clarified recently in Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct. 1495 (2000). Beazley asks us to grant a COA for each of numerous other issues, including whether his execution is precluded by his age at the time of the murder. The denial of habeas relief is AFFIRMED; each requested COA is DENIED. I. In June 1994, Beazley and two others, Cedric and Donald Coleman, were arrested for the April 1994 capital murder of John Luttig.
    [Show full text]
  • Amnesty International
    Public amnesty international UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Too much cruelty, too little clemency Texas nears 200th execution under current governor 30 April 2009 AI Index: AMR 51/057/2009 Texas long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens. While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas. Spokesperson for Governor Rick Perry on EU call for halt to Texas executions, August 2007 1. A ‘POINTLESS AND NEEDLESS’ DEPRIVATION OF LIFE On the evening of 9 January 2001, 37-year-old Jack Clark was taken from his prison cell in Texas, USA, and killed. This calculated killing was conducted by state government employees. It was not necessary. It could have been stopped. While deemed lawful by the courts, in the end it was a political choice to carry it out. Although such a killing could have, and has, occurred in a number of other US states both before and since – indeed one was carried out in Oklahoma on that same evening – it would not have happened in a majority of other countries at the beginning of the 21st century. Eight years later, even fewer countries operate this particular state policy. It is becoming less and less part of the modern world. It was not the first time such a killing had happened in Texas – far from it – and it was not to be the last. However, the execution of Jack Clark was the first to be carried out under the governorship of Richard Perry, the Lieutenant Governor who had been sworn in as the state’s 47th Governor three weeks earlier, on 21 December 2000, following the election of the previous governor, George W.
    [Show full text]
  • Death by Discrimination - the Continuing Role of Race in Capital Cases
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction....................................................................................................................1 The McCleskey obstacle.................................................................................................2 The evidence of bias continues to mount.......................................................................4 North Carolina............................................................................................................6 South Carolina............................................................................................................7 New Jersey.................................................................................................................7 Maryland ....................................................................................................................8 Texas ..........................................................................................................................8 Virginia ......................................................................................................................9 Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................10 Ohio..........................................................................................................................10 Poverty, race, and legal representation........................................................................12 Race, error, and arbitrariness .......................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • The American Bar Association Call for a Moratorium on Executions Gains Ground
    Defending Liberty Pursuing Justice TOWARD GREATER AWARENESS: THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON EXECUTIONS GAINS GROUND A Summary of Moratorium Resolution Impacts from January 2000 through July 2001 August 2001 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Defending Liberty Pursuing Justice TOWARD GREATER AWARENESS: THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON EXECUTIONS GAINS GROUND A Summary of Moratorium Resolution Impacts from January 2000 through July 2001 August 2001 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The materials contained herein represent the assessment solely of the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association. These materials and any forms and agreements herein are intended for educational and informational purposes only. Copyright 2001, American Bar Association Research performed on Westlaw courtesy of West Group. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Toward Greater Awareness: the American Bar Association Call for a Moratorium on Executions Gains Ground is the third report produced by the American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities to summarize legislative, judicial, public policy, and other developments that have occurred since the ABA's adoption of the death penalty moratorium resolution in February 1997. This report, which covers activity from January 2000 through July 2001, is intended to update and complement the two earlier publications issued in September 1998 and January 2000. The Section expresses its great appreciation to all who have helped research, draft, and produce this report over the past year.
    [Show full text]
  • No. in the SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES NAPOLEON
    No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NAPOLEON BEAZLEY, Petitioner v. GARY L. JOHNSON, Respondent On Petition for Writ of Certiorari To the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT: Petitioner Napoleon Beazley, an indigent, respectfully moves this Court to stay his execution, presently scheduled to occur shortly after 6:00 P.M. on August 15, 2001. Under Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 895-896 (1983), a stay should be granted only if there is a "reasonable probability that four Members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari . .; there must be a significant possibility of reversal of the lower court's decision; and there must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if that decision is not stayed." The underlying decision is Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. 2001) (attached as Appendix A). Clearly, irreparable harm will result if the execution is not stayed. The petition for writ 1 of certiorari filed by Mr. Beazley on June 13, 2001, presents issues of nationwide, and indeed global, significance. Mr. Beazley asserts that the issues in the petition are so meritorious that it is likely that, following review, this Court will reverse the underlying decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Justice Antonin Scalia authored the lead plurality opinion for the most recent case in which this Court has considered the international ban on the execution of child offenders. Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • USA: the Experiment That Failed: a Reflection on 30 Years of Executions
    Public amnesty international UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The experiment that failed A reflection on 30 years of executions1 16 January 2007 AI Index: AMR 51/011/2007 I have been a judge on this Court for more than twenty-five years… I have no delusions of grandeur and I know my place in the judiciary. My oath requires me to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. I will continue to do so until the Supreme Court concludes that the death penalty cannot be administered in a constitutional manner or our legislatures abolish the death penalty. But lest there be any doubt, the idea that the death penalty is fairly and rationally imposed in this country is a farce. US federal appeals court judge, 20052 Historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote in 1983: “No paradox is more persistent than the historic tension in the American soul between an addiction to experiment and a susceptibility to ideology”. On the one hand, Schlesinger suggested, “Americans are famous for being a practical people, preferring fact to theory, finding the meaning of propositions in results, regarding trial and error, not deductive logic, as the path to truth”. On the other hand, “they also show a recurrent vulnerability to spacious generalities”. 3 The USA’s attachment to the death penalty carries echoes of Schlesinger’s paradox. The facts on the ground say abolish, but an idealised notion of capital punishment says continue. Today, 30 years after Gary Gilmore was shot by firing squad in Utah on the morning of 17 January 1977, restarting executions after almost a decade without them, the USA’s reluctance to let go of judicial killing sets it apart from a clear majority of countries.
    [Show full text]