Dawson v. Delaware
117 L. Ed. 2d 309, 1992 U.S. LEXIS 1536, 503 U.S. 159 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the introduction of evidence regarding a defendant's constitutionally protected beliefs or associations at a capital sentencing proceeding if that evidence is not relevant to any of the issues being decided.
Facts:
- On December 1, 1986, David Dawson escaped from a Delaware prison.
- Following his escape, Dawson burglarized a house, stealing a motorcycle jacket and other items.
- Dawson then went to the home of Richard and Madeline Kisner, where he murdered Mrs. Kisner.
- The murder victim, Madeline Kisner, was white, as is Dawson.
- Dawson stole the Kisners' car and money and fled.
- Dawson had a tattoo on his hand that read "Aryan Brotherhood" and another across his stomach with the name "Abaddon," a name he told an acquaintance meant "One of Satan’s disciples."
- Dawson also had swastika tattoos on his back and had painted a swastika on his prison cell wall.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in a Delaware trial court convicted David Dawson of first-degree murder and other crimes.
- During the ensuing penalty hearing, the prosecution, over Dawson's objection, introduced a stipulation that Dawson was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood, a 'white racist prison gang.'
- The jury found three statutory aggravating circumstances and recommended that Dawson be sentenced to death.
- The trial court, bound by the jury's recommendation, imposed the death penalty.
- Dawson (appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court of Delaware, arguing that the admission of the Aryan Brotherhood evidence violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the sentence, holding that the evidence was relevant to Dawson's character and thus admissible.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Delaware.
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 the First Amendment prohibit the introduction of evidence of a defendant's membership in a racist prison gang during a capital sentencing hearing, when that evidence is not tied to the specific crime committed or any other aggravating factor?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes. The admission of evidence regarding Dawson's membership in the Aryan Brotherhood violated his First Amendment rights because it was not relevant to the sentencing proceeding. While the Constitution does not create a per se bar to admitting evidence of a defendant's associations, such evidence must be relevant to be admissible. Here, the prosecution failed to connect the Aryan Brotherhood evidence to any specific issue in the case. Unlike in Barclay v. Florida, where racial hatred was directly tied to the crime, Dawson's victim was white, so there was no racial motive for the murder. Furthermore, the prosecution's stipulation only proved Dawson's membership in a group with abstract racist beliefs; it did not show that the gang engaged in or endorsed violent acts, which could have been relevant to proving future dangerousness or another aggravating factor. Because the evidence proved nothing more than Dawson's morally reprehensible but abstract beliefs, its admission was unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No. The evidence of Dawson's gang membership was relevant to his character and its admission did not violate the First Amendment. Dawson placed his character at issue by presenting mitigating evidence of his kindness to family and participation in programs like Alcoholics Anonymous. The State was entitled to rebut this with 'bad' character evidence to provide the jury a complete picture. Jurors possess common sense and can reasonably infer that membership in a 'prison gang' implies engagement in forbidden activities and a propensity for future violence, even without explicit proof. The majority's holding creates a distorting double standard where a defendant can introduce evidence of association with 'good' groups, but the prosecution is barred from introducing evidence of association with 'bad' ones. This issue is more properly analyzed under the Due Process Clause's fundamental fairness standard, which was not violated here.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes. The author joined the majority opinion but wrote separately to state that the Court's decision does not require the Delaware Supreme Court to apply a harmless-error analysis on remand. Certain constitutional errors, particularly those with a potential chilling effect on First Amendment rights, may be so fundamental that they are not subject to harmless-error review. The issue of whether this type of error qualifies should be left for the state court to decide on remand.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical limitation on the evidence admissible in capital sentencing proceedings, reinforcing that even a defendant facing the death penalty retains First Amendment protections. The decision clarifies that while the scope of sentencing evidence is broad, it is not boundless; there must be a nexus of relevance between the evidence and a legitimate sentencing consideration. By requiring prosecutors to prove more than just a defendant's abstract beliefs or associations, the Court prevents the admission of evidence solely for its prejudicial effect. This ruling forces lower courts and prosecutors to specifically link such evidence to the crime's motive, an aggravating factor like future dangerousness, or the direct rebuttal of mitigating evidence, thereby safeguarding the sentencing process from being improperly influenced by a defendant's constitutionally protected, albeit offensive, beliefs.
Unlock the full brief for Dawson v. Delaware