*1 Me. Certio Sup. v. Maine. Jud. Ct. 85-960. No. Colson certiorari. grant would denied. Justice White rari Treece. Ark. Sup. Hess v. Ct. Certiorari No. 85-974. grant certiorari. would nied. Justice White Holding et al. Va. Sup. v. Sovran Bank Ct. 85-961. No. part Powell took no in the consid- denied. Justice Certiorari petition. or decision of this eration Lines, Sup. v. Eastern Air Inc. 85-1020.
No. Gellert Brennan no part denied. Justice took Fla. Certiorari Ct. petition. decision the consideration or Dairy Em et al. Milk Drivers 85-1098. & No. Vevoda ployees A. Mo- Union, Teamsters Local 302. C. 9th Cir. to Work Defense Foundation Right Legal tion of National denied. granted. file a as amicus curiae Certiorari leave to brief grant certiorari. O’Connor would Justice Spang A. Cer 85-1173. & Co. Grecco. C. 3d Cir. No. White and tiorari denied. Justice Justice O’Connor certiorari. grant C. A. 11th Cir.
No. 85-5928. Leon United States. Marshall would certiorari. 85-5972. v. Indiana. Ct. Ind. Certiorari denied. joins, with whom Justice
The trial
in this case
a unanimous
decision
spared,
be
him to die.
petitioner’s life should
sentenced
allegations,
Petitioner’s
which call
determination,
why
further illustrate
judge’s sentencing
recom-
should not have the awesome
Moreover, in the Indiana
inadequacy
mendation of
serious
life.
distinguishes it from
dramatically
capital sentencing procedure
jury-override
Spaziano
that this Court
Florida,
In response, specified the trial court one aggravating circum- stance, that the jury had convicted of murder in petitioner rape; course of a it it then stated that found no mitigating cir- cumstances, listing statutory and rejecting each mitigating circumstances, even though several were suggested the evi- regard dence. to factor mitigating concerning With a defend- ant’s impairment mental emotional condition and the of his ca- pacity appreciate criminality acts, of his the court found as follows: Defendant,
“This Court personally observed the while the present, was making motions, continual rocking which stop did not the trial throughout when the left the In chambers, Courtroom. the Court’s outer pres- out days in the eight trial, ence the Court fre- quently observed the sitting calmly Defendant and not rock- may It is ing. apparent Court well have influenced and misled the in its recommendation.” suspicions, subject On the basis of his evidentiary own requirements by cross-examination, judge ^tested decided that a wrong petitioner unanimous was should die. The Indiana the sentence of death. N. E. 2d 556 a scheme this Court sustained Florida, supra,
II In Spaziano to override judge gave make certain could sentence, provided impose a life relied, in on the Florida part, findings. specified so-called “Tedder adherence to the anticipated Supreme Court’s (Fla. State, 2d Tedder v. 322 So. standard.” Under decision of life may 1975), a Florida trial death is “so clear favoring evidence unless the imprisonment could differ.” virtually no reasonable convincing “significant safeguard,” Tedder to be a Ibid. This that “the Florida was satisfied S., Spaziano, Ibid. seriously.” takes that standard any itself to contrast, of Indiana has not committed the State arbitrary rejection of comparable safeguard protect against *3 contrary, governing scope the rules the a life sentence. theOn court appellate sentences appellate provide of review of where by a sentence authorized statute “will revise is not unreasonable,” and a “sentence manifestly such sentence is reasonable could find manifestly unreasonable unless no Rules Re- Appellate sentence . . . .” Indiana appropriate such added). 2 these rules to (emphasis Applying view of Sentences sentences, specifically of Indiana Supreme death standard of review engage clared that it “will not a different appropriate- disagree” concerning where and trial court I, Thus, supra, ness of the death sentence. Schiro recommendation a jury’s the Tedder standard accords while by requiring convincing” of correctness “clear and ev- presumption it, the Indiana accords justify overriding idence sentence, whether it was im- judge’s to the presumption a similar it. against to the recommendation of the posed pursuant that of death must reflect emphasized This has a sentence the “moral of the defendant. judgment guilt” an ethical about Florida, Enmund v. 458 S. 800-801 “Moral See U. representative is a determination that a as of com guilt” munity, peculiarly prosecutor, is well suited to render. But him, see, g., the substantial tools available to e. even with Wain Witt, (1985); Illinois, 469 412 wright Witherspoon U. S. (1968), persuade is unable conscience of the com appropriate punishment particular that death is the for a munity on the of “moral offense, expression guilt” then is least weight. By significance entitled to at some no according at of the crime jury’s defendant, all assessment and the either sentencing at the itself on Indiana’s dero- the historic role of the “Furman gates jury. Georgia, [v. (1972),] S. provide U. and its no progeny warrant for—indeed capital do tolerate —the exclusion from the sentencing process only critical contribution it can make toward linking punishment of capital administration to community (Stevens, values.” Spaziano, supra, J., 489-490 joined by JJ., dissenting part). Moreover, of disregard injects determinations a “level unreliability of uncertainty factfinding process capital Alabama, cannot be tolerated in a case.” Beck S. this case, example, judge specu- “may lated recommendation life well re- have” sulted from rock petitioner’s propensity to back and forth in the presence jury. Indiana law does not require to set forth its for recommending sentence, reasons a life so court could not have known whether the rocking motion had anything verdict; with do the court’s necessarily decision was speculative. that this Court has demanded from capital sentencing here, decisions is totally lacking and the “mani- festly unreasonable” standard adopted effectively Indiana insulates the sentence from meaningful review. Because I understand the Amendment require, at the very least, a jury’s considered sen- recommendation a life ignored tence rather than death not be without some showing unreasonable, it was I would to review Indi- *4 ana’s method of those bringing juries execution whose they should live. Kemp, 85-6010. Waters Warden. Ct. Ga. Justice Marshall Blackmun for writ certiorari, judg- vacate the ment, and remand the case for farther light consideration Mississippi, Caldwell v. U. S. 320 Brennan, my is in Adhering penalty view that the death all circum- punishment prohibited by stances cruel and unusual Amendments, Gregg Georgia, and Fourteenth 428 U. S.