Court issues death penalty ruling
The Supreme Court, dividing 5-4 on Wednesday, ruled that a death sentence may sometimes stand even though the jury based it in part on a factor that was later found to be invalid. The ruling overturned a Ninth Circuit decision in Brown v. Sanders (04-980).
If the aggravating factor at issue was part of the process of narrowing the class of individuals subject to the death penalty, the Court said, a sentence is not unconstitutional if that factor is struck down but others remain to serve the narrowing function.
This was the first death penalty decision in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., participated, and he joined the majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia. It also was the first 5-4 decision by the “Roberts Court.”
This was the only decision on Wednesday.
Doug Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy has some interesting observations on this ruling.
This decision vindicates Judge Alito’s opinion in Flamer v. Delaware, cited in footnote 3, for which he has been “flamed” by the anti-death-penalty crowd.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — January 11, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
The opinion may be a little more extensive than the summary. The invalid factor does require reversal if the evidence supporting that factor was not otherwise admissible. Essentially the Court seems to say the evidence with respect to the invalid factor is what is important. If it was admissible, no problem; if it is not admissible, reversal is required.
Comment by ashland — January 11, 2006 @ 3:22 pm