South Carolina v. Gathers
490 U.S. 805, 104 L. Ed. 2d 876, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2817 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against victim impact evidence in capital sentencing extends to a prosecutor's arguments about a victim's personal characteristics when that information is irrelevant to the defendant's blameworthiness and the circumstances of the crime.
Facts:
- Richard Haynes, a man with a history of mental health problems who considered himself a preacher, was sitting on a park bench.
- Haynes carried several bags containing religious items, including Bibles, rosary beads, and a religious tract titled 'The Game Guy’s Prayer,' as well as a voter registration card.
- Demetrius Gathers and three companions approached Haynes and, after Haynes rebuffed Gathers' attempt at conversation, they severely beat and kicked him.
- Gathers beat Haynes with an umbrella and then inserted it into his anus.
- While rummaging through Haynes' belongings for things to steal, the assailants scattered his personal effects, including the religious tract and voter card, on the ground.
- Gathers later returned to the scene and stabbed Haynes with a knife, killing him.
Procedural Posture:
- Demetrius Gathers was tried in the Court of General Sessions for Charleston County, South Carolina, which is a trial court.
- The jury found Gathers guilty of murder and first-degree criminal sexual conduct.
- During the sentencing phase, the jury recommended a sentence of death.
- Gathers (as appellant) appealed his death sentence to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
- The Supreme Court of South Carolina (the state's highest court) reversed the death sentence, finding the prosecutor's closing argument violated the Eighth Amendment, and remanded the case for a new sentencing proceeding.
- The State of South Carolina (as petitioner) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the state supreme court'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 prohibit a prosecutor, during the penalty phase of a capital trial, from making arguments about a victim's personal characteristics that are inferred from items found at the crime scene but are unrelated to the circumstances of the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes. The Eighth Amendment prohibits prosecutorial arguments that focus on a victim's personal characteristics if those characteristics were unknown to the defendant and irrelevant to the decision to kill. The prosecutor’s extensive comments on Richard Haynes’s character, derived from the content of a religious tract and a voter registration card found at the scene, were not directly related to the circumstances of the crime. There was no evidence that Gathers read the items or that their content had any bearing on his actions. Allowing a jury to rely on such fortuitous information about the victim's qualities violates the principle that a death sentence must be based on the defendant's personal responsibility and moral guilt, as established in Booth v. Maryland.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes. The Court's precedent in Booth v. Maryland controls this case. Unless that decision is to be overruled, the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina must be affirmed.
Dissenting - Justice O'Connor
No. The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a sentencing jury from considering the personal characteristics of the victim and the harm caused by the defendant's actions. Booth v. Maryland should be read narrowly and not as a rigid rule eliminating all consideration of the victim at the penalty phase. The harm caused by a defendant is a critical component of assessing blameworthiness and retribution, and conveying a 'glimpse of the life' the defendant extinguished is not unconstitutional. The prosecutor's arguments about Haynes's humanity, faith, and belief in his community were relevant to the community's loss and the jury's moral judgment.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. The decision in Booth v. Maryland was wrongly decided and should be overruled. There is no constitutional basis for preventing a jury from considering the specific harm caused by a murderer, which includes the admirable personal characteristics of the victim. The distinction between a victim's qualities and the injury to their family is often impossible to draw. Adhering to a freshly decided, erroneous precedent does more harm to the rule of law than correcting it promptly before it becomes embedded in legal practice.
Analysis:
South Carolina v. Gathers expanded the rule from Booth v. Maryland, which had barred formal victim impact statements, to now also prohibit prosecutors' arguments about a victim's character during capital sentencing. This decision solidified the principle that sentencing should focus strictly on the defendant's culpability and the direct circumstances of the crime, not the perceived 'worth' of the victim. However, this expansion was short-lived; both Gathers and Booth were overruled just two years later in Payne v. Tennessee (1991), which held that the Eighth Amendment does not erect a per se bar to the admission of victim impact evidence and prosecutorial argument on the subject.
