# Gardner v. Florida

> Supreme Court of the United States · March 22, 1977 · 430 U.S. 349

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426716

## Case

- **Full name:** Gardner v. Florida
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** March 22, 1977
- **Citations:** 430 U.S. 349; 97 S. Ct. 1197; 51 L. Ed. 2d 393; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 62
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Blackmun
- **Judges:** Stevens, Court'S, Stewart, Powell, Burger, White, Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, Rehnquist
- **Cited by:** 1,481 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Declined to follow by Sivak v. State, 112 Idaho 197 (1986).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 4
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426716

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “five Members of the Court have now expressly recognized that death is a different kind of punishment from any other” and that “[i]t is of vital importance to the defendant and to the community that any decision to impose the death sentence be, and appear to be, b…
- holding only that “the record on appeal [must] disclose to the reviewing court the considerations which motivated the death sentence,” but it does not require that the trial court identify the precise mitigating factors it weighed
- holding that the sentencing process “must satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause” and that a criminal defendant “has a legitimate interest in the character of the procedure which leads to the imposition of sentence”
- holding that a capital defendant’s due process rights were violated because he was sentenced without being provided access to information relevant to the trial court’s sentencing decision
- holding that it was a due process violation where the judge, in issuing the death sentence against the recommendation of the jury, considered a confidential presentencing report that was not considered by the jury

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
concurring in the judgment.
Given the judgments of the Court in Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976), and in Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U. S. 325 (1976), * each attained by a plurality opinion of Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, in combination with respective concurrences in the judgment by Justices Brennan and Marshall, I concur in the judgment the Court reaches in the present case.
See also Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242 (1976); Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262 (1976); and Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426716. Public record. Not legal advice.