Johnny Watkins, Jr. v. Edward Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 493 U.S. 907 (1989)
Johnny Watkins, Jr. v. Edward Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 493 U.S. 907 (1989)
Johnny Watkins, Jr. v. Edward Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, 493 U.S. 907 (1989)
907
110 S.Ct. 266
107 L.Ed.2d 216
Denied.
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and
unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments,
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 227, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 859
(1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and
unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments,
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 231, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2973, 49 L.Ed.2d 859
(1976) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting), I would grant the petition for certiorari
and vacate the death penalty in this case. Even if I did not take this view, I
would grant the petition to decide whether a court's failure either to inform a
capital sentencing jury that it must consider mitigating evidence or to explain
the concept of mitigation undermines a capital defendant's right to have the jury
"consider and give effect to any mitigating evidence relevant to a defendant's
background and character or the circumstances of the crime." Penry v.
Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 328, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 2952, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989).
The judge's failure in this case to instruct the juries on the role of mitigating
evidence created a substantial risk that the juries did not conduct their
sentencing tasks properly. I therefore would vacate petitioner's death sentences
and remand for new sentencing.
6
"(2) That the defendant's conduct in committing the offense was outrageously
or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman, in that it involved an aggravated battery
to the victim beyond the minimum necessary to accomplish the act of murder."
App. F to Pet. for Cert.
The instructions stated that each jury could sentence Watkins to death if it
found that the State had proved the existence of one of the aggravating
circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt; alternatively, the jury could choose
the punishment of life imprisonment if it believed "from all the evidence that
the death penalty is not justified." Ibid. The instructions did not mention
"mitigating evidence" or any equivalent concept. The judge also read the
verdict form to the jury in each case. That form required the jury to certify that,
in reaching its verdict, it had "considered evidence in mitigation of the offense."
Ibid. The form offered no explanation of "evidence in mitigation."
10
instructed as to all matters and findings that they were required to make,
including but not limited to evidence in mitigation of punishment." App. D to
Pet. for Cert. The State Supreme Court, without addressing petitioner's
challenge to the instructions, refused to hear his appeal.
11
12
13
164, 188, 108 S.Ct. 2320, 2334, 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988) (O'CONNOR, J.,
concurring in judgment) ("We have defined mitigating circumstances as facts
about the defendant's character or background, or the circumstances of the
particular offense, that may call for a penalty less than death" ). If it is possible
for judges to misconstrue the term and exclude relevant mitigating evidence,
see Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, at 113-114, 102 S.Ct. 869, at 876-877,
71 L.Ed.2d 1, it seems probable that a jury operating without adequate
guidance could do the same. The imposition of the death penalty should not be
contingent on a particular jury's unguided understanding of a legal term of art.
When a trial court refuses to give content to the words on which a defendant's
life depends, the subsequent sentence is arbitrary and capricious. I therefore
dissent.