Darden v. Wainwright
477 U.S. 168 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's improper remarks during a closing argument do not constitute a denial of due process unless the comments so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction fundamentally unfair. In making this determination, courts must evaluate the comments in the context of the entire trial, considering the weight of the evidence, whether the remarks were invited by the defense, and the effect of any curative instructions.
Facts:
- On September 8, 1973, a man entered Carl's Furniture Store near Lakeland, Florida, and feigned interest in purchasing furniture from the proprietor, Mrs. Turman.
- The man returned minutes later, pulled a gun on Mrs. Turman, and robbed the cash register.
- When Mrs. Turman's husband, Mr. Turman, appeared at the back door, the man shot him between the eyes, killing him.
- The assailant then forced Mrs. Turman to the floor and demanded she perform oral sex on him.
- When a 16-year-old neighbor, Phillip Arnold, arrived to help, the assailant shot him in the mouth, neck, and side; Arnold survived.
- A neighbor saw a late-model green Chevrolet leave the store.
- Minutes later, Willie Darden crashed a similar car a few miles away; a witness saw him zipping his pants as he exited the vehicle.
- Police found a .38 caliber revolver near the crash site with a firing pattern—one shot, one misfire, three shots—that matched the events at the store, and ballistics linked the gun to the bullet that killed Mr. Turman.
Procedural Posture:
- Willie Darden was tried, convicted of murder, robbery, and assault, and sentenced to death in the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Florida.
- On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The U.S. Supreme Court initially granted certiorari on the prosecutorial misconduct claim but later dismissed the writ as improvidently granted.
- Darden sought a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which denied the petition.
- A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial.
- The Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the District Court by an equally divided vote.
- Following a second en banc rehearing, the Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding a juror had been improperly excluded.
- The State of Florida petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, which granted the petition, vacated the Eleventh Circuit's judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Wainwright v. Witt.
- On remand, the en banc Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of habeas relief.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Darden's application for a stay of execution and treated it as a petition for a writ of certiorari.
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 a prosecutor's improper and inflammatory closing argument, which was not objected to at the time and was responsive to defense counsel's arguments, so infect the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
No, the prosecutor's comments did not so infect the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. The appropriate standard of review is not the broad exercise of supervisory power, but the narrow one of due process under Donnelly v. DeChristoforo. The Court found that the prosecutor's argument did not manipulate or misstate the evidence, nor did it implicate specific constitutional rights. Much of the objectionable content was an 'invited response' to the defense's own closing argument, which characterized the perpetrator as an 'animal' and blamed the sheriff's office. Furthermore, the trial court instructed the jury that arguments of counsel were not evidence, and the overwhelming eyewitness and circumstantial evidence against Darden reduced the likelihood that the jury's decision was influenced by the improper remarks.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the prosecutor's comments deprived the petitioner of a fair trial guaranteed by the Due Process Clause. The majority's opinion tolerates a level of fairness and reliability so low it should make conscientious prosecutors cringe. The prosecutor's summation was not a momentary lapse but a 'calculated and sustained attempt to inflame the jury,' filled with personal opinions on Darden's guilt, arguments designed to inflame passion and prejudice, and irrelevant attacks on the corrections department. The 'invited response' doctrine does not justify the relentless and single-minded nature of the misconduct. The evidence was not overwhelming, resting on problematic eyewitness identifications and circumstantial ballistics evidence, meaning the prosecutor's sustained assault on Darden's humanity likely affected the jury's credibility determination and tainted the verdict.
Concurring - Chief Justice Burger
The opinion concurs fully with the majority and writes separately to rebut the dissent's suggestion that the Court's decision was motivated by impatience. The rejection of Darden's claims is based on a thoughtful application of law to the facts, not on the number of times the case has been reviewed. The 13 years of judicial proceedings demonstrate substantial care and patience, and at some point, there must be finality in the legal process.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Justice Brennan joins the dissent of Justice Blackmun and adds that he would vacate the death sentence because the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a very high bar for a defendant to prove that prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments violated their due process rights, especially on federal habeas review. By heavily weighing the 'invited response' doctrine and the overall strength of the state's evidence, the Court makes it difficult to overturn a conviction based on improper argument alone. The ruling emphasizes a standard of 'fundamental fairness' rather than trial perfection, signaling that even universally condemned prosecutorial remarks may not be sufficient for reversal if the trial as a whole is not deemed unfair. This precedent significantly limits the scope of federal habeas relief for claims of improper prosecutorial argument.
Unlock the full brief for Darden v. Wainwright