U.S. Supreme Court 05-02-11

by: Grapkoch • May 1, 2011 • no comments

Read the full article for details about the following new cases:

• Death Penalty Instructions Upheld

The Court finally issues a criminal opinion today, albeit a per curiam reversal of the Sixth Circuit's decision to grant habeas relief. The case is Bobby v. Mitts, which addressed (1) Whether the State of Ohio offends due process by using the same penalty-phase jury instruction affirmed by this Court in Smith v. Spisak; and (2) Whether clearly established federal law extends the holding of Beck v. Alabama to the penalty phase of a capital trial. In a disposition available here, the Court answers both questions in the negative.

As to the first question, the Court stands by its conclusion in Spisak that the instructions at issue are not contrary to Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988) (instructions invalid where jurors precluded from considering mitigating factors if such factors are not unanimously found). Here, the scheme instructed jurors that

"When all 12 members of the jury find by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances in each separate count with which [Mitts] has been found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors, if any, then you must return such finding to the Court."

According to the Court, there simply is not "a substantial possibility that reasonable jurors, upon receiving the judge's instructions in this case, and in attempting to complete the verdict form as instructed, well may have thought they were precluded from considering any mitigating evidence unless all 12 jurors agreed on the existence of a particular such circumstance." Smith v. Spisak, 130 S.Ct. 676 (2010) (quoting Mills).

As to the second question, the Court stresses the important distinction between the absence of juror alternatives at the guilt and sentencing stages of trial. The instructions at issue here informed the jury that, if they made the requisite findings,

"then you must recommend to the Court that the sentence of death be imposed on [Mitts]….On the other hand, [if] after considering all the relevant evidence raised at trial, the evidence and testimony received at this hearing and the arguments of counsel, you find that the state of Ohio failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances with which [Mitts] was found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors, you will then proceed to determine which of two possible life imprisonment sentences to recommend to the Court."

Below, the Sixth Circuit held that the state court's validation of this command was contrary to the decision in Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980) (the death penalty may not be imposed "when the jury was not permitted to consider a verdict of guilt of a lesser included non-capital offense, and when the evidence would have supported such a verdict").

The Court emphatically rejects that conclusion, stressing that "[t]he concern addressed in Beck was 'the risk of an unwarranted conviction' created when the jury is forced to choose between finding the defendant guilty of a capital offense and declaring him innocent of any wrongdoing." That principle is not directly applicable for the purposes of habeas. Furthermore, the Court notes, even if Beck were directly applicable, informing the jury that its choice was between death and a life sentence gives sufficient assurances to assuage its central concern.

More information on Bobby v. Mitts can be found at the SCOTUSblog case page, found here.