 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. McKoy9/7/1988
vidence we unanimously find that it has been proven by A preponderance of the evidence that the mitigating circumstances marked "yes" in Section II outweigh the aggravating circumstances marked "yes" in Section I.
Blanks designated "yes" and "no" followed. Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 403.
The fourth and final section read:
Determination of Sentence
Enter the determination of sentence either "Life Imprisonment" or "Death" according to the following instructions:
1. If all of the answers in Section I are marked "no" enter "Life Imprisonment."
2. If Section III was completed and was marked "yes" enter "Life Imprisonment."
3. If Section II was completed and all of the answers were marked "no" then enter "Death."
4. If Section III was completed and was marked "no" enter "Death."
Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 403.
In Section I, the jury answered "yes" to one of the aggravating circumstances and "no" to the rest. In Section II, it answered "no" to mitigating circumstances 1 through 7 and "none" to number 8 (the "catchall"). Having found no mitigating circumstances, the jury did not answer Section III. It returned a death sentence in response to the mandate of number three in the final section. Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 400-03.
This sentencing scheme mandated the death penalty if the jury unanimously found at least one aggravating circumstance and did not unanimously find any mitigating circumstances. Because the jury found one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances, it was required as a matter of law to impose the death penalty without completing Section III, which called for the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
The defendant challenged his conviction and sentence, arguing that Maryland's capital-punishment statute was unconstitutionally mandatory as applied to him, because "even if some or all of the jurors were to believe some mitigating circumstance or circumstances were present, unless they could unanimously agree on the existence of the same mitigating factor, the sentence necessarily would be death." Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 392 (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court granted certiorari " ecause of the importance of [this] issue in Maryland's capital-punishment scheme." Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 393.
After examining the verdict form and instructions under which the jury had sentenced the defendant to death, the Court concluded that even if the jurors had reached Section III, "they were not free . . . to consider all relevant evidence in mitigation as they balanced aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Section III instructed the jury to weigh only those mitigating circumstances marked 'yes' in Section II." Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 397 (emphasis in original).
here is a substantial probability that reasonable jurors, upon receiving the judge's instructions in this case, and in attempting
to complete the verdict form as instructed, well may have thought they were precluded from considering any mitigating evidence unless all 12 jurors agreed on the existence of a particular such circumstance. . . . The possibility that a single juror could block such consideration, and consequently require the jury to impose the death penalty, is one we dare not risk.
Id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 400. Because of the risk that the jury was improperly precluded from considering certain relevant mitigating evidence, the Court held that the Maryland scheme violated the doctrine articulated in Lockett and Eddings. See id. at , 100 L. Ed. 2d at 400. Therefore, the Court vacated t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|