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.