Caldwell v. Mississippi
472 U.S. 320 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A capital sentence is constitutionally invalid under the Eighth Amendment if it is based on a determination by a sentencing jury that has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests with an appellate court.
Facts:
- Bobby Caldwell robbed a small grocery store.
- In the course of the robbery, Caldwell shot and killed the store's owner.
- During the sentencing phase of his capital murder trial, Caldwell's lawyers made a plea for mercy, emphasizing the jury's "awesome responsibility" for the life-or-death decision.
- In rebuttal, the prosecutor sought to minimize the jury's sense of responsibility for its decision.
- The prosecutor told the jury that their decision was "not the final decision" and that it was "reviewable" by the Mississippi Supreme Court.
- The prosecutor argued it was "unfair" for the defense to suggest the jury would be killing Caldwell, as their decision was subject to automatic review.
- When defense counsel objected, the trial judge allowed the argument to continue, stating it was "proper that the jury realizes that it is reviewable automatically."
Procedural Posture:
- Bobby Caldwell was prosecuted by the State of Mississippi in a state trial court.
- In a bifurcated proceeding, a jury convicted Caldwell of capital murder.
- In the subsequent sentencing phase, the same jury imposed the death penalty.
- Caldwell (appellant) appealed his death sentence to the Mississippi Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and, by an equally divided 4-4 vote, affirmed the death sentence.
- Caldwell petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does it violate the Eighth Amendment for a prosecutor, during the sentencing phase of a capital trial, to argue that the jury's responsibility is diminished because their death sentence verdict is subject to automatic appellate review, an argument the trial judge endorses?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. It violates the Eighth Amendment for a prosecutor's argument, endorsed by the trial judge, to mislead a capital sentencing jury into believing the ultimate responsibility for a death sentence rests with an appellate court. The Eighth Amendment's requirement for heightened reliability in capital sentencing rests on the foundational principle that the sentencer understands and accepts its 'awesome responsibility' for determining whether a human being should die. State-induced suggestions that the jury may shift this responsibility create an intolerable risk of arbitrary and capricious sentencing. An appellate court is ill-suited to make the initial, individualized moral judgment about the appropriateness of death, as it reviews for legal error with a presumption of correctness and cannot dispense 'appellate mercy.' The prosecutor's argument was both misleading as to the nature of appellate review and irrelevant to any valid penological interest, and the trial judge's endorsement of the argument exacerbated the constitutional error.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes. The prosecutor's remarks were impermissible because they were inaccurate and misleading in a way that diminished the jury's sense of responsibility. The argument created the mistaken impression that appellate review would provide the authoritative determination of whether death was appropriate, when in fact Mississippi law requires the reviewing court to apply a 'presumption of correctness' to the jury's verdict. However, this does not mean that all information regarding postsentencing procedures is constitutionally forbidden. A state could conclude that the reliability of its sentencing procedure is enhanced by accurately and non-misleadingly instructing jurors on the limited nature of appellate review, and the Constitution does not foreclose that choice.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No. The prosecutor's comments, when viewed in their full context, did not render the sentencing proceeding fundamentally unfair in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court overstates the seriousness of the remarks, which did not tell the jury they had no responsibility, but rather that they were not solely responsible. The prosecutor followed the challenged remarks by forcefully emphasizing the jury's duty to decide the facts, follow the law, and render a fair verdict. Given the entire context of the trial—including the charges, the defense's impassioned plea, and the prosecutor's full argument—it is highly unlikely the jury's sense of its 'awesome responsibility' was diminished. The Court should avoid turning every perceived procedural imperfection in a capital case into a ground for constitutional reversal.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical principle in capital punishment jurisprudence: the sentencing jury's sense of ultimate responsibility is a cornerstone of the Eighth Amendment's reliability requirement. By prohibiting arguments that diffuse this responsibility, the Court reinforced that the jury's unique, individualized moral judgment cannot be delegated to appellate courts. This decision places a clear limit on prosecutorial argument in capital cases, requiring trial courts to police remarks that mislead jurors about the finality and gravity of their role. It distinguishes such misleading arguments from the permissible provision of accurate information about postsentencing procedures, such as the possibility of commutation at issue in California v. Ramos.
Unlock the full brief for Caldwell v. Mississippi