# Gardner v. Florida

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426717

## 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 Brennan
- **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/9426717

## 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 Brennan.
I agree for the reasons stated in the plurality opinion that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated when a defendant facing a death sentence is not informed of the contents of a presentence investigation report made to the sentencing judge. However, I adhere to my *365 view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227 (1976) (Brennan, J., dissenting). I therefore would vacate the death sentence, and I dissent from the Court’s judgment insofar as it remands for further proceedings that could lead to its imposition.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426717. Public record. Not legal advice.