Jones v. United States
527 U.S. 373 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment does not require a capital sentencing jury to be instructed on the consequences of a deadlock. A death sentence will not be overturned for allegedly confusing jury instructions unless there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instructions in a way that violates the Constitution.
Facts:
- Louis Jones, Jr. kidnaped Private Tracie Joy McBride at gunpoint from the Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas.
- Jones brought McBride to his house and sexually assaulted her.
- After the assault, Jones drove McBride to a bridge outside of town.
- At the bridge, Jones repeatedly struck McBride in the head with a tire iron until she died.
- The blows were of such severe force that large pieces of her skull were driven into her cranial cavity or were missing.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Government charged Louis Jones, Jr., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas with kidnaping resulting in death.
- Following a jury trial, Jones was found guilty.
- A separate sentencing hearing was held, after which the jury unanimously recommended a sentence of death.
- The District Court imposed a death sentence in accordance with the jury's recommendation.
- Jones, as appellant, appealed his sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which, with the Government as appellee, affirmed the sentence.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fifth Circuit's decision.
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 Eighth Amendment require a federal capital jury to be instructed on the consequences of deadlock, and is a death sentence rendered arbitrary where instructions and verdict forms could have led the jury to believe that non-unanimity would result in a court-imposed sentence less than life imprisonment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No. The Eighth Amendment does not require a capital sentencing jury to be instructed on the consequences of deadlock, and there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury was misled into believing a deadlock would result in a lesser sentence imposed by the court. With regard to jury instructions on deadlock, the Eighth Amendment does not mandate that a jury be given any information that might possibly influence a juror's voting behavior but is unrelated to the individualized sentencing determination. Such an instruction could undermine the strong governmental interest in having a jury reach a unanimous verdict that expresses the conscience of the community. Regarding jury confusion, petitioner's claim is subject to plain error review because he failed to object at trial. Under the 'reasonable likelihood' standard, the instructions, when viewed as a whole, were not misleading because the trial court explicitly stated that any sentencing recommendation must be unanimous. This cured any potential ambiguity in other parts of the charge or on the verdict forms. Lastly, the nonstatutory aggravating factors concerning victim impact and victim vulnerability were not unconstitutionally duplicative, vague, or overbroad; even if they were, any error was harmless.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. The death sentence is unreliable and should be reversed because the jury received inaccurate and misleading sentencing information, which is an indispensable prerequisite for a constitutional death sentence. The District Court committed plain error by instructing the jury that it could recommend a 'lesser sentence' when, for the crime of kidnaping resulting in death, the only possible sentences were death or life without parole. This erroneous instruction created a reasonable likelihood that jurors who favored a life sentence were coerced into voting for death to avoid the perceived risk of the judge imposing an even lighter sentence. The court should have instructed the jury that a deadlock would result in a life sentence, which is the proper interpretation of the Federal Death Penalty Act. The additional error of submitting duplicative and vague nonstatutory aggravating factors further skewed the weighing process, putting a 'thumb on death's side of the scale.'
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the high threshold for challenging a capital sentence based on allegedly confusing jury instructions, particularly under plain error review. By refusing to mandate a 'deadlock instruction,' the Court prioritized the goal of jury unanimity over providing jurors with information about the procedural consequences of their inability to agree. The ruling confirms that federal courts are not constitutionally required to inform capital juries about the default sentence in case of non-unanimity, a practice required by many states. The Court's analysis of the nonstatutory aggravating factors also reinforces the broad admissibility of victim impact and vulnerability evidence in the selection phase of capital sentencing.
