HERNANDEZ-AVILA v. UNITED STATES
No. 90-6459
C. A. 3d Cir.
1053
REICHHOLD CHEMICALS, INC. v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 515, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, ET AL.
No. 90-609
C. A. D. C. Cir.
Motions of Capital Associated Industries, Inc., and Carpet & Rug Institute for leave to file briefs as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied.
TOLEDO BLADE CO. v. TOLEDO TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 63 ET AL.
No. 90-618
C. A. D. C. Cir.
Mоtion of petitioner for leave to intervene in order to file petition for writ of cеrtiorari denied. Certiorari denied.
CHOPIN ASSOCIATES ET AL. v. SMITH, TRUSTEE, BANK OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
No. 90-761
C. A. 11th Cir.
Motion of petitioners to defer consideration оf petition for writ of certiorari denied. Certiorari denied.
NATIONALIST MOVEMENT v. CITY OF CUMMING ET AL.
No. 90-933
C. A. 11th Cir.
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Certiorari denied.
PLETTEN v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD ET AL.
No. 90-5961
C. A. 6th Cir.
Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of petition for writ of certiorari denied. Motion of petitionеr to strike brief in opposition denied. Certiorari denied.
TURNER v. CALIFORNIA
No. 90-6047
Sup. Ct. Cal.
Certiorari denied.
JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.
Petitioner was convicted in California state court of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, he argued that application of the death penalty in this case was arbitrary because it was excessive when compared with penalties imposed in similar cases. The California Supreme Court noted that petitioner “present[ed] an elaborate survey of рublished [California] Court of Appeal decisions to demonstrate the hypothesis that many first dе
I dissented from the decision in Pulley, and I continue to believe that it was wrongly decided. The singling out of particular dеfendants for the death penalty when their crimes are no more aggravated than those committed by numerous other defendants given lesser sentences is unacceptable. As Justice Brennan pointed out in his dissent in Pulley, comparative proportionality review, at the vеry least, “serves to eliminate some of the irrationality that currently surrounds imposition of a death sentence” and “can be administered without much difficulty by a court of statewide jurisdiction.” 465 U.S., at 71. In the present case, petitioner has not merely “requested” review for comparаtive proportionality, cf. id., at 44, but has (in the lower court‘s own words) “present[ed] an elaborate survey of published Court of Appeal decisions,” allegedly showing that “many first degree murderеrs of equal and greater culpability have received sentences less than death.” 50 Cal. 3d, at 718, 789 P. 2d, at 916. I cannot understand how this Court can reconcile a refusal to review such evidence with our capital jurisprudence.
As we have often recognized, “[b]ecause of the uniqueness of the death penalty, . . . it [cannot] be imposed under sentencing procedures that creat[e] a substantial risk that it would be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 188 (1976) (joint oрinion of Stewart, Powell, and STEVENS, JJ.). Indeed, we have “insiste[d] that capital punish
Even if I did not believe that failure to consider petitioner‘s evidеnce on the issue of proportionality violated the Eighth Amendment, I would grant the petition аnd vacate the sentence below, adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all cirсumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 231 (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).
OXFORD v. MISSOURI; ANTWINE v. MISSOURI; and MAY v. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION
No. 90-6077, No. 90-6119, No. 90-6228
Sup. Ct. Mo.; Sup. Ct. Mo.; C. A. 5th Cir.
Certiorari deniеd. Reported below: No. 90-6077, 791 S. W. 2d 396; No. 90-6119, 791 S. W. 2d 403; No. 90-6228, 904 F. 2d 228.
JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstancеs cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 231 (1976), I would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.
RODRIGUEZ v. COLORADO
No. 90-6371 (A-275)
Sup. Ct. Colo.
Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to JUSTICE WHITE, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Certiorari denied.
JUSTICE MARSHALL, dissenting.
In both Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988), and McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433 (1990), we vacated death sentences based on jury instructions that, reasonably construed, prevented the respective juries from considering any mitigating factors they did not unanimously find to exist. Because I believe that the in-