Calhoun v. Maryland
480 U.S. 910
SCOTUS
1987
Check Treatment

CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, ET AL. v. KOEHLER, COMMISSIONER OF NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

No. 86-1064

C. A. 2d Cir.

1987

910

Motion of inmate respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

TCI CABLEVISION, INC., ET AL. v. CENTRAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.

No. 86-1159

C. A. 8th Cir.

1987

Motion of Media Institute for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied.

CALHOUN v. MARYLAND

No. 86-5867

Ct. App. Md.

1987

Certiorari denied.

JUSTICE BRENNAN, dissenting.

Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments,

, I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case.

JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.

Maryland‘s capital sentencing statute provides that, “[i]f [the sentencing jury] finds that the mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the aggravating circumstances, the sentence shall be death.” Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 413(h)(2) (1957). The trial court‘s jury instruction in this case similarly stated: “If you find that the mitigating factors do not by a preponderance of the evidence outweigh the aggravating factors, then you mark that accordingly and proceed to Section 4 and enter a sentence of death.”

. Once again the Maryland Court of Appeals has reviewed the statute and jury instruction and has concluded that defendant was not assigned the burden of proof during his sentencing proceeding, even though neither the statute nor the instruction otherwise expressly addressed the placement of this burden.

“[I]t is plain that any rational juror would understand the language of § 413(h) and [this instruction] as placing the burden of persuasion on the accused. Indeed, I cannot imagine any other way to read the statute that does not completely ignore its words. No fair-minded juror could have understood from these instructions that the burden was upon the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that aggravating circumstances must outweigh mitigating circumstances before a sentence of death could be returned.”

(MARSHALL, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).

I adhere to my belief that the Maryland statute, as written, and as applied, unconstitutionally places the burden of proof on capital defendants at the sentencing phase of their trials. I would grant the petition for certiorari.

MORGAN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

No. 86-5965

C. A. D. C. Cir.

1987

Certiorari denied. JUSTICE SCALIA took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

MULLIGAN v. KEMP, WARDEN

No. 86-5991

C. A. 11th Cir.

TUCKER v. KEMP, WARDEN

No. 86-6094

C. A. 11th Cir.

1987

Certiorari denied.

JUSTICE BLACKMUN would grant certiorari.

JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments,

, we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.

MCMURTREY v. ARIZONA

No. 86-6204

Sup. Ct. Ariz.

THOMAS v. DUGGER, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

No. 86-6227

Sup. Ct. Fla.

1987

Certiorari denied.

JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.

Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments,

, we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.

LOCKHART v. MCCOTTER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

No. 85-7163

479 U. S. 1030

Petition for rehearing denied.