U.S. Supreme Court - May 31, 2016

by: Aalvarez • June 4, 2016 • no comments

Capital Case - If Future Dangerousness is an Issue, Jurors Must Be Told Only Alternative to Death Sentence is Life Without Parole

Under Simmons, If the state makes issue of the defendant's "future dangerousness" during the sentencing phase of a capital case and the only sentencing alternative to death available to the jury is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the due process clause entitles the defendant to inform the jury that he will not be made eligible for parole. Here, the defendant was convicted of a capital offense. During sentencing, the prosecutor put the defendant's future dangerousness at issue, but the court refused to give an instruction to the jury explaining that the only alternative to a sentence of death was a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The defendant appealed and eventually, petitioned for review in front of the Supreme Court.

On review, the state argued that failure to provide the jury instruction was not in error, as the defendant could have received executive clemency after 25 years, and thus retained the very small possibility of release. In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court rejects that argument, noting that the mere possibility of executive clemency is not the equivalent of parole, which the defendant would never be eligible for. Parole was unavailable to the defendant as a matter of law and therefore the instruction should have been given.

Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissent, citing their disagreement with the original holding of the Simmons case.

Lynch v. Arizona State's brief available here. Defendant's brief available here.