 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Mertz11/17/2005
evidence of his Internet viewing of sexually explicit sites, nude photos of his girlfriends, his e-mail address, his tattoos, the books he possessed, his possession of guns, and his "political" statements.
In support of his argument, defendant relies primarily upon the Supreme Court's opinion in Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159, 117 L.Ed. 2d 309, 112 S.Ct. 1093 (1992). We believe defendant reads Dawson much too broadly.
The defendant in Dawson was a member of a prison gang called the "Aryan Brotherhood." During the penalty phase of Dawson's trial, the following stipulation was entered into evidence. " `The Aryan Brotherhood refers to a white racist prison gang that began in the 1960's in California in response to other gangs of racial minorities. Separate gangs calling themselves the Aryan Brotherhood now exist in many state prisons including Delaware.' " Dawson, 503 U.S. at 162, 117 L.Ed. 2d at 315, 112 S.Ct. at 1096. The defendant in Dawson later claimed the stipulation violated his constitutional rights. Dawson cited the Supreme Court's decision in Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 77 L.Ed. 2d 235, 103 S.Ct. 2733 (1983), wherein the Court had held that an aggravating circumstance is invalid if "it authorizes a jury to draw adverse inferences from conduct that is constitutionally protected." Zant, 462 U.S. at 885, 77 L.Ed. 2d at 255, 103 S.Ct. at 2747. Relying upon Zant, Dawson argued that "the Constitution forbids the consideration in sentencing of any evidence concerning beliefs or activities that are protected under the First Amendment." Dawson, 503 U.S. at 164, 117 L.Ed. 2d at 316, 112 S.Ct. at 1097.
The Supreme Court rejected such a broad reading of Zant, stating, "the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the admission of evidence concerning one's beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because those beliefs and associations are protected by the First Amendment." Dawson, 503 U.S. at 165, 117 L.Ed. 2d at 317, 112 S.Ct. at 1097. The Court, nonetheless, held that the stipulation violated defendant's constitutional rights, and explained why:
"Before the penalty hearing, the prosecution claimed that its expert witness would show that the Aryan Brotherhood is a white racist prison gang that is associated with drugs and violent escape attempts at prisons, and that advocates the murder of fellow inmates. If credible and otherwise admissible evidence to that effect had been presented, we would have a much different case. But, after reaching an agreement with Dawson, the prosecution limited its proof regarding the Aryan Brotherhood to the stipulation. The brief stipulation proved only that an Aryan Brotherhood prison gang originated in California in the 1960's, that it entertains white racist beliefs, and that a separate gang in the Delaware prison system calls itself the Aryan Brotherhood. We conclude that the narrowness of the stipulation left the Aryan Brotherhood evidence totally without relevance to Dawson's sentencing proceeding." Dawson, 503 U.S. at 165, 117 L.Ed. 2d at 317, 112 S.Ct. at 1097.
The Court's concluding comments provide guidance as to the kind of evidence that would be admissible:
"Because the prosecution did not prove that the Aryan Brotherhood had committed any unlawful or violent acts, or had even endorsed such acts, the Aryan Brotherhood evidence was also not relevant to help prove any aggravating circumstance. In many cases, for example, associational evidence might serve a legitimate purpose in showing that a defendant represents a future danger to society. A defendant's membership in an organization that endorses the killing of any identifiable group, for example, might be relevant to a jury's inquiry i
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 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|