McCleskey v. Kemp

Supreme Court of United States
481 U.S. 279 (1987)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A defendant cannot establish a violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments by showing that a statistical study indicates a risk that racial considerations entered into capital sentencing determinations in the state's justice system. The defendant must prove that the decision-makers in their specific case acted with a discriminatory purpose.

Facts:

Warren McCleskey, a black man, and three accomplices, all armed, planned and carried out the robbery of a furniture store in Fulton County, Georgia.
During the robbery, the accomplices secured the employees in the back while McCleskey secured the customers in the front.
A white police officer, responding to a silent alarm, entered the store through the front door.
As the officer walked down the center aisle, he was shot twice and killed.
The State's evidence at trial indicated that one of the bullets that struck the officer was fired from a .38 caliber Rossi revolver, which matched the description of the gun McCleskey carried.
Two witnesses testified that they had heard McCleskey admit to shooting the officer.

Procedural Posture:

A jury in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia (a state trial court), convicted Warren McCleskey of murder and armed robbery.
Following a penalty hearing, the jury found two statutory aggravating circumstances and recommended a death sentence, which the trial court imposed.
On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia (the state's highest court) affirmed the convictions and sentences.
McCleskey filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, arguing that Georgia's capital sentencing process was administered in a racially discriminatory manner.
In support of his claim, McCleskey presented a sophisticated statistical analysis known as the Baldus study.
The District Court denied the habeas petition, concluding that the study's methodology was flawed and that the statistics did not demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, assumed the statistical validity of the Baldus study but affirmed the District Court's denial of relief.
The Court of Appeals held that the statistics were insufficient to demonstrate discriminatory intent under the Fourteenth Amendment or to show that the system was arbitrary and capricious under the Eighth Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutional claims.

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 complex statistical study indicating a substantial risk that racial considerations play a role in capital sentencing determinations establish that a defendant's death sentence violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Powell

No. A statistical study showing a risk of racial disparity in capital sentencing does not, without evidence of discriminatory purpose in the specific case, prove a violation of the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments. To prevail on an Equal Protection Clause claim, a defendant must prove that the decisionmakers in his own case acted with discriminatory purpose, which McCleskey failed to do. General statistics are insufficient because each capital sentencing decision is unique, involving innumerable variables and discretionary judgments by prosecutors and juries that are fundamental to the criminal justice system. Unlike in jury venire or Title VII cases, the State has no practical opportunity to rebut a statistical inference, as jurors cannot be questioned about their deliberations and prosecutorial discretion is constitutionally protected. For the Eighth Amendment claim, the Georgia sentencing scheme has sufficient safeguards against arbitrary and capricious application, as established in Gregg v. Georgia. The risk of racial influence suggested by the Baldus study does not rise to the level of a systemic, constitutionally significant defect.

Dissenting - Justice Brennan

Yes. The statistical evidence demonstrates a constitutionally unacceptable risk that McCleskey's death sentence was a product of racial prejudice, violating the Eighth Amendment. The core concern of the Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence since Furman v. Georgia is the risk of an arbitrary sentence, not the proven fact of one in a particular case. The Baldus study shows that it is more likely than not that the race of McCleskey's victim was a substantial factor in the jury's decision to impose death. Given the finality of the death penalty, this intolerable risk renders the sentence cruel and unusual. Georgia's long and well-documented history of racial discrimination in its criminal justice system corroborates the study's findings and shows that the statutory safeguards have failed to eliminate the influence of race.

Dissenting - Justice Blackmun

Yes. McCleskey presented a prima facie case of purposeful racial discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which the State failed to rebut. The Court misapplies the established framework for analyzing equal protection claims. McCleskey's evidence, showing a clear pattern of differential treatment based on the victim's race at multiple stages, especially in prosecutorial decisions to seek the death penalty, creates a strong inference of discriminatory purpose. The burden should have shifted to the State to provide a neutral explanation for the disparity, which it failed to do. The Court's refusal to scrutinize prosecutorial discretion and its application of a weaker standard of review because this is a capital case is a departure from well-developed constitutional jurisprudence.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Yes. The strong probability that the jury's sentencing process was distorted by racial prejudice is constitutionally intolerable. The Court's fear that accepting McCleskey's claim would necessitate the abolition of capital punishment is unfounded. A key lesson from the Baldus study is that for certain categories of extremely aggravated murders, race appears to play no role in sentencing. Georgia could constitutionally remedy the defect by narrowing the class of death-eligible defendants to those categories, thereby significantly decreasing the danger of arbitrary and discriminatory application of the death penalty. The case should be remanded to determine if the facts of McCleskey's specific crime place it within the range of cases that present an unacceptable risk of racial influence.

Analysis:

This landmark decision significantly raised the evidentiary bar for defendants alleging racial discrimination in criminal sentencing. By rejecting system-wide statistical evidence and requiring proof of 'purposeful discrimination' in the individual case, the Court insulated sentencing outcomes from challenges based on disparate impact. The ruling has been heavily criticized for overlooking the potential for unconscious bias and systemic racism, making it nearly impossible to prove racial discrimination in capital punishment without 'smoking gun' evidence of intent. This precedent has shaped subsequent litigation by forcing challengers to focus on procedural errors or individual misconduct rather than broader patterns of racial disparity in the justice system.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"