Amicus Curiae Brief — Maxwell v. Bishop
Supreme Court brief1970
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
i A : > == >. > >. * »* « . . . 4
* aay : '
. . >.
. . 5 . ~ °
. . .
. . e
.
. . . . Ve .
7 .
.
as *. . és ®
. . . ~ “ e
. . ®
. ® °
. . . .
. . . «e =
. . . * «
. . =
.
7 . *
.
. .
>. FS .
> ‘4 c -
a x .
ad . e 7
° .
. . ~ . ~
: +
.
. .
. .
. .
. . ‘ . ° + 2
- . .
. . . “
. 7
$ » a * .
”
. 6 . .
. . . . . 7
.
. .
al . .
» ° . =
>. ® -« s .
. *& e
at
Litany | be. a ey,
| FILED.
“\ PREMES us
Ce
Wut Lb. Maxwaas. pie }
= |
O. B. Hesnor, Superurtendsut of etnies |
State Penitentiary.
af
Oe Wrn of Oeruaren « Ge Dunes State:
Overt of Appens ‘ar Ge Bigme .Orrewn
: 7
7 :
Peewee €. Sawn
Stones Ceememe « fee Meete @ | Bhiferere
inner © Biweem Ju.
oter teens feememe © fh Mreee of ( elifereie.
a a ae
vw Veer Seteemme femmem 6 fee Mere of eli ferme.
a
Uegete Aeterna deememe «! the Meets of Onhiforeis.
—~ Gee em,
~~ eee eee
Olfires ee Yer Remerws Carnac.
elie ee ee
Interest of Amicus Curiae .............:............--.... 1
Ce Se ee Sewanee 3
ES a a aL 5
“Argument EEE ES SS a Se 7
I. A Legislative Decision Not to Restriet by the Imposition
of Standards the Power of Juries to Spare the Lives of
Persons Convieted of Capital Crimes Denies Neither
Due Process Nor Equal Protection .................. 7
Il. If This Court Should Find the Standardless Penalty
Trial Unconstitutional in the Context of the Arkansas
Practice, Distinguishing Features of California Proce-
dure Would Warrant Refusal to Strike Down the Cali-
ERIS pT al A I a 22
Conclusion ....... EEE NS set ie Ee oe ea a 27
‘/ Fable of Authorities Cited
People v. Jackson, 67 Cal.2d 96, 429 P.2d 600, 60 Cal.Rptr.
ote (1967), facts reported at 59 Cal.2d 375, 379 P.2d 937,
WD Cal. Mipte. GOB (TRGB) occ cccessccccdsccssdsssavccee
P eaple v. Lara, 67, Cal.2d 365, 432 P.2d 202, 62 Cal. Rptr.
YR pies ones Say ppt pd sia pati, ibaa Je
People v. Lookadoo, 66 Cal.2d 307, 425 P.2d 208, 57 Cal.Rptr.
i CN ces Ue bee eh een ae eee :
People v. Love, 56 Cal.2d 720, 366 P.2d 33 (1961) .........
People ¥. Massie, 66 Cal.2d 899, 428 P.2d 569, 59 Cal. Rptr..
ee Re ee re ee care eleks
Cases Pages
Giaecio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 (1966) .............. 19
In re Anderson, 69 A.C. 638, 447 P.2d 117, 73 Cal.Rptr. 21
(TBGB) .ccssce ch atitne weve wate eine e +» 4, 8, 9, 12, 17, 19, 21, 23
Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 (1966) .............. 9
Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 (1965) ...:............ 9
People v. Anderson, 70 A.C. 58; 447 P.2d 956, 73 Cal. Rpte.
ts Ae reyes © pny pee nr ae 14
People v. Bandhauer, 66 Cal.2d 524, 426 P.2d 900, 58 Cal.
SS HUD CIES a5 2escenewe cede bacnnaidoceens ehauetess 15
People v. Bassett, 69 A.C. 121, 447 P.2d 777, 70 Cal. Rptr. :
ee CUE) vc dde hb Tiddacadeus Cabececnenarseaeiians 14°
People v. Beivelman,.70 A.C. 37, 447 P.2d 913, 73 Cal. Rptr.
Bt rr rr rrr Rcauseamumaes 14
People v. Durham, 70 A.C. 179, P.2d . .., .... Cal. Rptr.
SOOT ods nep. ce cant seh sketeubetesba piers anes cee 14
People v. Gonzales, 66 Cal.2d 482, 426 P.2d 929, 58 Cal, Rptr:
GOR SUED cov ivecceses dcauaneadssdscevsisessebaceses 15
- People v. Green, 47 Cal. 209, 302 P.2d 307 (1956) .......... 16
People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459, 426 P.2d 507, 58 Cal. Rptr.
107 (1967) bP Ee PPT CF Te Pee MALT agape Are 15
People v. Hill, 66 Cal.2d 536, 426 P.2d 808, 58 Cal.Rptr. 340
CRUDE YD cicedengircetaNcanacaveccaetloacebineaiaeeares 15
People v. Hines, 61 Cal. 2d 164, 390 P. od 398, 37 Cal. Rptr. 62
MD Sc cn es cideacheaetielecsceddamned i dds 23
People v. Hines, 66 Cal.2d 348, 425 P.2d $57, 57 Cal-Rptr.
Be COED oo ndduns ta send bene tebeiereoebn PP 15
Tas_e or AvTuorities Citrep iii
Pages
People v. MeDowell, 69 A.C. 766, 447 P.2d 97, 73 Cal.Rptr. '
Be | APPS Rp ENO Be PE OP BR OL OE o oe 14
People v. Modesto, 66 Cal.2d 695, 427 P.2d 788; 59 Cal.Rptr.
Be CE op aul'se vs cone bb ue dene theese cieeaeee 15
People v. Morse, 60 Cal.2d 631, 32s P.2d 33, 36 Cal.Rptr.
201 (1964) Sa Veus Wes ee vi sbs5sbe6 cdeaenat waeabee is 16
People v. Pennington, 66 Cal. 2d 508, 426 P.2d 942, 58 Cal.
SE; SR AMMOED bacco sebeae ac creceus ices deus reauaw eo 15
People v. Powell, 67 Cal.2d 32, 429 P.2d 137, 59 Cal. Rptr.
De GUND a pode cue cds eres okeukeedteourcinesesicerens 15
People v. Risenhoover, 70 A.C. 15, 447 P.2d 925, 73 Cal.Rptr.
ee SD pao. s Gob Cees te sake ee dein dbue ower cee kiens 14
People v. Spencer, 66 Cal.2d 158, 424 P.2d 715, 57 Cal. Rptr.
Sh RRR ea oe a RR ME rN he NE Re Ml pc Typ ple 15
People v. Varnum, 66 Cal.2d ‘808, 427 P. 2d 772, 59 Cal. Rptr.
he. Ba ere ane ene 15
People v. White, 69 A.C. 781, 446 P.2d 993, 72 Cal.Rptr.
Se CEE A vascaneSiotebecotve bea datadiede cede raaecss 14
People v. Wilson, 66 Cal.2d 749, 427 P.2d 820, 59 Cal. Rptr.
BGG (1GGT). onic ercccccccvecccbeccecvcccciceccccceces 15
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) ....2............... i)
Tehan v. Shott, 382 U.S. 406 (1966) ..,............... ae 4
Winston v. United States, 172 U.S. 303, 312-313 (1899) .... 11
Witherspoon, vy. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968) 2.0.00... 6,7, 16,17
Codes
California Penal Code :
I URE ot ca udanccacrueetecigsseeh tectecs 2, 9, 22, 24
Model Penal Code : °
Section 210.6 (Proposed Official Draft 62) ..........
Texts
A. Koestler, Reflections on Hanging 166-167 (1956) 00... Ww
Noie, 109 U.Pa.L.Rev. 67 (1960) .......2... Spiers
Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, 1949-1955 Report
”?
he Gheterecs ‘age of the State of Cah-.
fornia ts a! —— Question set forth im the
order rant , “Theran, which reads as
fesevia.a
i Ww Vrkonsas’ practice of permitting .
the trea Howe te dyseretion, uncontrolled by
sturndard any kind, te impose
thie’ cheva! ‘ tex the Due Process ¢ Aaluse
Nw | A
Wittiaw L. Mave : ) :
: | Petitioner, |
Vs. |
4 op, L
: {
O. BE. Bisner. Super evient of Arkansas
Stu beng ,
Respondent, | _
—_
. On Writ of Cueiurer, to the United States
Court of Avinenis for the Eighth Circuit
BRIEF FOK THE PEwrCr OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AWICLS CLA IS SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
INT SALE OF AMICUS CURIAE
- bs " " > 4 " , ‘“y wey ‘6
a |
» 2
Amicus. curiae has no interest in the disposition
of the second question relating to the constitutionality
of the procedure whereby issues of guilt and penalty °
are determined at a single hearing and upon a singte
‘verdict. California does not employ this. procedure,
but rather utilizes a two-stage trial with the issues of
guilt and penualty being determined in separate pro-
ceedings. Cal. Pen. Code § 190.1. |
We do, however, have a substantial interest in the
first question. California, like Arkansas, gives no
standards to juries to bind them in the determination
of whether to. impose the sentence of death or life
imprisonment upon a defendant convicted of .first-
degree murder. But California does have certain im-
portant safeguards against arbitrariness in the sen-,
tencing process which may or may not be present in
Arkansas. Furthermore, petttioner has vigorously al-
leged the existence of racial discrimination in the
capital sentencing process of Arkansas, and has used
this as a demonstration of alleged abuse of this sen-
tencing process attributable in part:to the lack of
standards binding the jury. Whether or ara claim
is valid, no possible claim of racial discrimination in
capital sentencing in California has been or could be
made, We fully support respondent in regard to the
‘general proposifion that a legislative scheme of eap-
ital sentencing which refuses to impose strictures.
upon the discretion of the sentencer, be it judge or
jury, denies no constitutional right whatever.
The sole common feature of the California and
v
Arkansas procedures is the absence’ of standards re-—
.
%
3
stricting the discretion of a jury in a capital case in
determining whether to spare the life of the defend-
ant. We believe that a sentencing procedure without
such standards is constitutional and is in fact an
ameliorative procedure which haxthe effect of mini-
mizing the number of death sentence verdicts actu-
ally returned.
It is the desire to uphold the validity of our Cali-
fornia practice that brings The People of the State
of California before this Honorable Court as amicus
curiae. :
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .
In asking this Court to strike down as unconstitu-
tional any procedure for capital sentencing which
does not provide standards to minimize the discretion
of jurors or judges in performing their sentencing |
function, petitioner makes a complex, highly theoreti-
eal argument, which entirely ignores the ‘practical eon-
sequences that should be uppermost in the mind.of
this Court in determining whether due process and ”
equal protection require the limitation of diseretion
in the capital sentencing procedure. His argument
has never been accepted by any court.
Our basie proposition is a simple one: penalty trials
conducted without standards ny neither due process
nor equal protection and as a practical matter result
in far fewer death sentences than would trials con- —
ducted with any reasonable set of standards. Death
is the de jure or de facto presumptive penalty, for first
\ +
: r . ; a ; m Z : —_
degree murder and other capital offenses. The effeet of -
the. standardless penalty trial is to give the jury Cand
in California, the judge as‘well) free rein te erant
merey. The imposition of fixed and limited standards
would tend to stifle the impulse to dispense merey by
at once diminishing each Juror’s individual responsi
bility to make a choice between life or death aecording
to his conscience, and by foreing him te justify, te
himself and his fellow jurors, upon some unknown
grounds, his compassionate inclination to. spare life,
This case comes up from a jurisdiction which em
plogs an unusual sentencing procedure. Ire Arkansas,
if petitioner is correct In his reading of the law of
a8 state, a jury and only a jury makes this Soles un
reviewable judicial decision between life and death in
a/capital case. dt ts thus élaimed that the stindardless
penalty trial mvites the jury to aet arbitrarthy, that
the single-verdiet procedure deprives the’ jury of fac
tual information it needs to act rationally, and that
the absencetat judicial review or even meaningful ju
- divial participation in the SURTONEIE Process provides
Ho safecuard against arbitrariness, Without coneediny
the validity of any of these arguments, we wish te
hote that the California procedure is radically differ
ent and clearly distinguishable, In California, a pen.
alty jury may be waived, ‘The trial judge has the dats
to res lew any death setitence recommended Ih ULES
- and to pass such a sentence only ify in his independent:
judement, tt ts justitied. Furthermore, the California
, y , re as ; |
“Supreme ‘Court, While lacking the formal power to
reduce a death sentence, retatis & very wirwe measure
on
a
cr
of contrel over the sentencing process by means. of
its power ‘to reverse, solely as to punishment, judy-
ments of death on the hasis of errors that. would be
insignitieant in the guilt phase. Furthermore, .Cali-
forma employs a ‘twoestage trial which, though we
‘
de not in any way concede, is constitutionally re-
quired, does ensure that all evidence relevant to pun-
ishrgent Cexeept that which the California Supreme
Court has held tke People may not present) is pre-
sented to the jury, and at no cost to the defendant's
privilere against self-inerimination. | |
We will leave to respondent the task_of rebutting
any inference of racial discrimination in the imposi-
‘tion of the death sentenee for rape in Arkansas which —
may arise from the statistics gathered by petitioners,
but we submit that if such discrimination is proved,
ne connection has been established between it and the
Tne k of standards in capital sentencing. It seems most
unlikely that juries determined to discriminate ‘on’
racial grounds will be deterred by any abstract stand-
“ards avhich the jJudge:may give them. ,
‘PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Before proceeding to our argument, we feel Oblivegince
to call to the attention of the Court that there is rea
sonable wround to beheve that Ae case or. Controverst
aetuall eNists in this t tnatter, The only issues embraced
-by the grant of certior ari in a case (see Appendix,
p. TH) concern the validity of ‘petitioner's death sen-
tenee, and not the validity of Ins gonvietion, If he is
>
;
*
han ileath wotite th " af i nbabe, anf “ue th oo '* : “3
‘* A te a . *.
")
.
ad .
—eptithad te Have hie» deaths wartatertneres mad ststale sngoeen
other emmitnads, ‘he Would appear te bave tee taastens
ee berfarper ‘thts Court the ecnte Wt bends wie he
has wnde. °° gla he pee .
Nitiee the” pure’ in feet 40 beetee: t's ‘ase tttapremmad the death
a ileniey Myon bam on “Wim? ave be Footer the legetetens
at this Cort on Ww ith. sapunem # Wim , “wit ts, bbe
mS) thete is “ subetantial prrenttenlite cated pale apr
a porestoabalits , thit the’ inev Wliieh mitered Pho teatl
~entetien Wim ehoesTattatenl pte wtelTiteens of the a wi iol.
hivaed downy us that wane, whet i ueer Tatly. wed et rae
UF, wm 4 in the Pima’, Pre et neotante went lal \ etebrthedt av? i
; seed
tapmats epepel neat beets tee tee eetnet sof ocettepeer deat Tr i‘
tits Fee Ohne shee tatene tet. Dearfactar Abaan QC seaelt peteticcent
wematonel btwe set eden lbetbead “7 the epeeccghedo
W ithe repre. enter i . : :
" . . .
Petitioner's wtleteee sel the peetred r titel Bieies
Vy te Deed thay th. WO sPdes appre pennte bet seine’ chats
’
*s ,
“Tre onde” nn the testinal wee,
this “Conant, he walt til} rr’ cutatleat tear | | i neat
i ste rapusion Ihe wn Deerde:, . bei r “
Metaesl A rude of creat sales nooo
tat tone tebe pebienal attaek ppaee ble cheat! ’
rl tuber Ve cttenitietanee we on t that the an
Theots sol wlether ti A) ee ee ee 0) ee 1
Peweeenl of getitiotwe’s (rial is prSper cuhbat ln 5
quan iy the Coat. te Thee pert We ahi a Bee
avwes tet the treal i vintece yp pet sth ova weete chet
fhoany vibeyeunt Obra Yornnstoalets of Widder way wad bea rr T
o*
eT i » | = H ‘ , ; lee
fF 68 te Fictateal te mine .° Depepetert Fag) ts sige? that
thi. (. EH Datopelad ceP ier dbnape ~ The. wernt of certierat
as; eet ba _ sy. yetees te tttend or “shel,
“wh at Pevennt Feels ' — sel tev thee erant of
ort heat ‘ike % fr. beers the ¢ muse af Ay
i" a). ahead im a a . rye watdeoration me
the theht ot 0 oe, ;
. . f » ° : ;
. °
oa
S LOM ISL ALIVE OfeleloN foe © get? ev THE IMPORI
TION OL STARWARON FH ewe OF FURIES TO SPARE
ets Oe errr op carrran, crimes |
AEN ibe Ser Et nn ee ee ea] _POUAL PROTECTION
ons) : very ote) equal pene
— rw lones on enpatal
i °* . Sey . ; . ~ the Acted
t's fermi oT ; ete cepdanentedd bey
“*
* o > od
- ofartal : . Bee ‘law hewn” sane
”
hh tpertenrive " i
LL ‘ ‘ ' ne . ‘ TL LLU LL
aa * ‘yee ibd ‘urn ort
; > ,* ateettte° Petitioner om
le ti : ' het = 1 hep then tt the
aitiaonee tate retaining
a oe - ‘ ree asl to oot
| . ‘ we teed New
: | sr vacheegi \. the Cah
hata . - "Pind: recon, “un
ie
“The diseretion conferred upon the penalty
jury is similar to that conferred upon the trial
court to punish certain erimes as either felonies
or misdemeanors, Many sections of ‘the Penal
Code. vest in the trial court diseretion to sentence
defendants convicted of crimes to state prison or
to jail without mention of standards for the exer-
cise of that discretion, [Citation] Such sections
have been held not to violate due process or equal
protection.” Id. ‘at G1, 447 P2d at 126, 73 Cal.
“Rptr. at 30, .
Indeed, the broadening of discretion in the matter
of sentencing has been noted as one of the progressive
devaopments in the eriminal Jaw in the. past half
century. Thus, provisions for indeterminate prison
sentences, the power of a trial court to reduce a felony
offense to a misdemeanor, and te grant probation in
an expanded number of cass, have appeared alony
With the substitution-of an unlimited power of a jury
fo crant a life sentence in a éapital case for the prior
practice of an ayutotuatic death sentence tipen the re-
‘then of a verdict of cuilty, Moreover, the broadening
of sentencing discretion cenerally and in capital cases
particularly has accompanied and in ne way has heen
ieAnsistent w ith the broadening of constitutional pro-
teetions for criminal defendants, We submit that the
arcnneat advanced by - petitioner's counsel exalts
theory over practicality, and ignores history,
This Court lias never shut its eyes te the practical
romseqiences of its far-reaching decisions, Notably,
this Court has shaped its retroactivity doctrines with
an eye to minimizing the negative practical conse-
9 .
° ,
quences to the state of applying retrospectively a
newly announced doctrine. See Stovall v. Denno, 388
U.S. 293 (1967); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S.”
719 (1966); Tehan v. Shott, 382 U.S! 406 (1966) ;
Linkletter v. Walker, 381 US. 618 (1965). When this
Court considers adoption of a new constitutional rul-
ing which deals exclusively with matters of life and
death, the probable practical results of the doctrine -
must be examined with the greatest care.
In support of the argument that standardless trials
work in favor of the defendant, we begin with the
proposition that death is the presumptive penalty for
capital offenses, usually murder in those English
speaking jurisdictions which retain capital punish-—
ment. It is not the preferred penalty in the sense of
being more frequently imposed than life imprison-
ment, for petitioner correctly notes that it is every-
where imposed in only a minority of capital cases, It
is, however, the presumptive penalty, in law, in fact,
or in both. In some states the Legislature has ex-
‘ pressed a preference for the death penalty ever its
alternative of life imprisonment. In others, such as
‘California, the Legislature’ has remained neutral as
hetween the two alternatives. See Cal. - Pen, Code
§ 190.1, But to-hold that a standardless proceeding is
constitutional in the former jurisdictions but not in
the latter would be to exalt form over substance. In re
Anderson, supra, 68 A.C, 638, 650, 447 P24 117, 125,
73 Cal.Rptr. 21, 29 (1968). But whatever the legisla-
tive prescription, it is undeniable that in the minds and
hearts of the lay juryman, death is the presumptive
10
penalty for murder. In our cultural heritage, from
the Old Testament, through the English common law,
modern erime tietion and motion pictures, through the
daily news media reports of A Manon Trial for His
Life,” the penalty for murder ts death. The principle
‘that wilful and deliberate killing is followed by. the
hoose Is inextricably a part of our collective conseious- |
ness. The juror thus brings with him to the jury box
the expectation that death will ordinarily follow Upon
a tinding of guilty.”
Why, then, is the death sentence in prosed With eom-
parative rarity ? The answer is thateno jury liehtly
asstimes the responsibility of ordering a man’s death,
The question confronting a jury avhieh has found an
aceused guilty of a capital erie is therefore not,
“Shall we kill him?" but Shall we spare hin 2 Lee
tslation which omits standards for the jury's determi
ation amounts tein affirmation that the jury should
be in ne Way tinpeded in answertne that question in
the affirinative.
In voting te spire tlhe life of a defendant convieted
of a eapital erime, the ry os aetine upon its feelings
of charity, benevolenes. sviipathy, pity, empathy, and
homanitv. See AL Noestler, Reflections on Manama,
Wt? CI9GG). These emotions are highly valued
incevery civilized culture, but they are, in the Vest
sense vel the word, nen rational This Court has put
the matter somewhat differently, bat quite aptly:
"The authority of the juinw tee deenle that the ae
cused shall onot be punished eapitally is not lin
ted to eases un whieh the court, or the jury, is of
/
ee |
opinion that they are palliating or mitigating
circumstances, But it extends to every case in
which, upon a view of the whole evidence, the
jury is of the opinion-that it would not be wise or
just to impose capital punishment. Hlow far con.
siderations of awe, sex, imnoranhee, illness, or in
toxication, of human passion or Weakness, of svi
pathy or clemency, or the irrevocableness of an
executed sentence of death, or an apprehension
that explanatory facts may exist which have not
been brought to light, or any other consideration
whatever, shouJd be allowed weight in deciding
the question whether the accused should or should
not be capitally punished, ts committed by the act
of Congress to the sound diseretion of the jury,
and of the jury alone.” Woiston vo United States,
172 U.S. 303, 312-313 (1899), | :
That any reasonable system of standards would in
deed ypesult in more death sentenees than the current
standardless procedure is a Proposition Which, theouseh
‘of necessity in part theoretical, can hardly be doubted
The Only conceivable type of standards whieh lesoshe
tures could enact would necessarily revolve around
ageravating and mitwating circumstances, The lew
islature might. simply identity: and enumerate such
ciremmstances, provide for them bem pread toe the
jury, and leave the matter in the jurv’s sele disere
thot. It would, of Orisa’, In totally Alar taer this -
Court fo inipose on the states, as a matter of comstitu
tional law, the requirement that juries be instructed
in terms of standards which they would) be entirets
free to disreward,
j = ” f
* bead * *
. * *
.
Ina any event such a Fortnulation ot oat trad, nds, Deeats
. essentially uh Isery £ . could bee Gt tees salaks initial he hefit
to conv teted defendants, The Jey Wonk rence hin.
tally free te distesaril the “list of WPAN Ait ted
DUETS E Ete e ire TIS tees, Ana the. aneunt of haent to
a defendant. that stich a Portritihation rt shlaudinds
vouhd Work is enormous, bideeds the vor alutuera
Hon oof ageravatine and> matey Sebi Clb stnces
would tert stremely te Vtipel the pur: te Http thi
dleagth setiteniee Wherever thes cians stro endl sony et Phleets
Hoe ravatine CUretitbistitioes ittuad thee traits Ten) ereuby
stanees, Phe jurw's natural Jorealispuese TOT eet Tee
lite eun be Hiministed Is prertretane, tee on J cal pene
se ribald” stand: ibs bn ohetibettins and cite ' litte
ant’. Tithures te itheowt thavons stitidatds an - “stittoaty
Tor bettisinie toe spume tim 2 :
‘ é . ° .
7 . . y " .
he secunid Phhed fae? UM pm oof sPustadards 2) 1 i hy
lerivond Wotthe stitthanrts Phe tats age sv iatie biel
WTAE Tae” COPS t ties teat wonthl ms an al
or thhete uf the aehravaton CITC NEtaAtes , beaat
or tewel thie wll vf the Peett ave jatany it i? ' te
pitesetit i creer te THESTHEN tttbpreestticen . ' heal!
peernalty Woe wenthd susie that oh peste wi
°
eTittits Warrant the sleuth jeetialty | ewiitially o a
eostent - bag thre “oheeteal Peptesentativd 5 tts,
“See Cobeirein epettatets Of Nok dl ano: '
sn, supra, \r te is: tah Hh. 1 ni tt | ' |
Cul Rpt Sh. Mbt Mivteweqen hits G icktet
etly. at levest tee Obes an Pespgiette ' : 1 4
titel “letudene UT Stele stoped : ow
eetivelsy teat yeew the Piatiye : ye hy i
.
13":
clevat! Lrertada? ia
°
mised, This Court could hot
he oteust take place unless it
pwerealtn could “thot: be consti
; Fy s
Peat icetesval ly feet
my. tot before this Court in
fot has ne place in the
.
-
ttintoat AAA 2 ok °
a “i gested any specific lin
eo rine to binding stand
foros ever formally devised,
h tranny lave + found in -Model Code 4 2106
} : : ‘ ' wh ; "3 1 ii
‘| ‘neitivating cCiretmstances
son tenes may be imposed
he coreumstanees Is found
reiinstances: sufficient
nev. “These. averavating
committed Dyca conviet
reorient.
. — |
Was pres lousy comvieted
felons invelving’ the
mM the PMP,
murder was committed
vetted another murder,
nt knowingly created a
ryaragi' persons,
vee committed while the
or Was an accomplice in
otter ph te eommyt, or
Poattemipting fo eomnit
, fh oseNtal infereourse by
orenere nS eertam capital offense.”
This section -enumern.
ene ene oem
14
*
foree oy threat of force, arson, burglary or kid-
naping.
~"(f) The murder was commsefed for the pur-
pose of avoiding or preventeffg a lawful arrest or
effecting an escape from lawful custody,
*(¢) The murder was committed for pecuni-
ary gain, — | 2 ,
“(h) The murder was especially heinous,
atrocious or cruel, manifesting exceptional de-
pravity.” ~
The foregoing list of aggravating circumstances is
difficult. to quarrel with, and would probably command
a rough consensus among those who favor the death
penalty as to what may properly be considered agera-
vating. It is worth noting that in each of the last
twenty-two cases reviewed by the California Supreme
Court (which reviews all death sentences imposed in
California) in which a sentence of death was imposed
for first-degree murder, one or more of the ageta-
vating circumstances enumerated in the Model Penal
Code were present.’ We have no way of knowing, of
Ph opl r , Darhom. TO AC. 179; P 2d . Cal Rptr.
(1960) Cforeible resistance to arrest); People v. Anderson, 70 AL,
Ss, 447 P2d 956, 73 Cal Rptr. 550 (1968) Cexce ptic ‘nal heinousness
and depravity—60' stab wounds in body of vietim, a tet-year-old
girl); Ws ople ve, Beivelman, TOA. 37, 447 Pld O13, 75 ‘al. Rptr.
A21 (1968) (robbery); People v. Risenhoover, 70 AC. 15, 447 PL2d
W575 Cal Rptr. 533 (1968) (kidnaping); People v. White, 69 ALC,
7S, 446 P2d 995, 72 Cal Rptr. 875 (1968) Cburglary, robbery, and
rape); Prople ve McDowell, 69 A. 766, 447 Po2d 97, 73 Cal. Rpt a
1 (1968) (robbery ». Pe ople i, Bassett, 69 AC. 121, 445 Pid 777,
70 Cal Rptr. 193 (1968) (double murder); People v. Lara, 67 Cal.
¥4 365, 432- Pld 202, 62 Cal Rptr. 586 (1967) (kidnaping) ;
People v. Jackson, 67 Cal2d %, 429 P.2d 600, 60 -CalLRptr. 248
(1967) faets reported at 59 Cal.2d 375, 379 Pi2d 937, 29 Cal. Rptr.
505 (1963) (rape; prior convictions of crimes of violence); People
15
course, in how many cases. the jury, notwithstanding
the presence of aggravating circumstances, spared the .
defendant’s life for no reason other than the desire to
dispense mercy. 3 . ;
An .additional problem with any attempt to formu-
‘late standards is that any list of mitigating cireum-~
stances must necessarily be. ex*lusive; it canriot hope
to foresee and provide for all the possible mitigating
circumstances that could arise. in the context of. a
given case. Under the present standardless system,
the defendant’s attorney is able to seiae upon any |
circumstance and argue that it is mitigating, without
being forced to attempt to bring himself within a
prescribed list.
It is worth noting that in California the standard-
less penalty rial has evolved through a ‘series of court
decisions all of which, at the insistence of defendants
v. Powell, 67 Cal.2d 32, 429 P.2d 137, 59 Cal Rptr. S17 (1967)
(kidnaping); People v. Massie, 66 Cal.2d 899, 428 P.2d S69, 59
Cal. Rptr. 733 (1967) (robbery); People v. Varnum, 66 Cal.2d 808,
427 P.2d 772, 59 CalRptr. 108 (1967) (robbery, kidnaping);
People v. Wilson, 66 Cal2d 749, 427 P.2d 820, 59 Cal Rptr. 156
(1967) (double murder, possibly in the-course of perpetrating.a
burglary); People v. Modesto, 66 Calzd 695, 427° Po2d 788, 59 Cal
Rptr. 124 (1967) (double murder, possibly in the course of perpe
trating rape and burglary; prior murder conviction); People 4
Mill, 66 Cal.2d 536, 426 Pe2d 908, 58 Cal Rptr. 340 (1967) Crob
bery); People v. Pennington, 66 Cablld 508, 426 Po2d 942, 58 Cal
Rptr. 374 (1967) (kidnaping, rape, as indieated at 66 Calld 511
n. 1); People v. Bandhauer, 66 Cal2d 524, 426. P 2d 900, 58 Cal
Rptr 332 (1967) (robbery): People ve. Gonzaly, 66 Cabld 482, ~
426 P.2d 929, 58 CaLRptr. 361 (1967) Crobbery): People eo Griffin,
66 Cal2d 459, 426 P.2d 507, 5S Cal Rptr. 107 (1967) (rape
People v. Mines, 66 Cal2d 348, 425 Pld 557,07 Cal Rptr. 757
(1967) (robbery ) ; i ople '. Lookadoo, 66 Cal2d 807, °425 Pld
208, 57 Cal. Rptr. 60S (1967) (robbery) ; People r, Spencer, 66
Cab2d 158, 424 Pld 715, 57 Cal Rptr. 163° (1967) (robbery,
kidnaping).
it , we
and for their Denetit, removed Crome the jpv'’s con
sideration standards found riimical te’ detendant’s
interest, People eo Green, AT Cal. 2am, aoe Pd Be7
(E900), overritled Che Tee of cases aplioldime the pre
priety of Anstrneting the yury that at: stroudd beanie any
the death perialty aanless it found miatigatuns errpum
atiunees. Dae Bre opal ‘iy Lecvvy . 8 Cabld Ta, oo Dd
Oa, SOO CEMOL), Prosecutors wore forbidden: te: airgae
to the jury thatthe death pronalty “sa deterrent te
CPt, Peopl te. Morse, a0 Valo til, nas 1" Sd iki,
So Cal ipte 2ob beds, Neha that newhor by istrie
thote’ thor evidderiee coubd: the puny Lan infortiod that 1
person comvietedd of test deacree nrupder ad sent heed
to Tite traprtsetiment: eo te paapehed: within evn
Vears, The UN pebteties “ait thie Calitas fin monet this
Hetuls strona te beat (UE thee praprasition that stand
ards eat ons resull in hhh death weritenes
Vhe argument for the CORSE EL Tr anadity of standare
lens praca tril bas coed strenarth Pasean Aha ob
etstom of this Court ut itherspioon v- Pinos, WO
tS Sho 1S). where thi (iatinl Haba od thy
evens Last evel istot unt potential beeen thi capital:
cuses th the tiferest of tuaking thy HUEY Gas Peper 4
Hative ads possible of the comsernce amd valiios of th
COMDMENEEELEN Dey arestaein that reine: capsprenent tas Chee
haath prartnaa lt Walls vucet be onebictoal Picci Pans iigila
then ‘hus bs ose yen bens a uatts hi’ tas preter tinds thea -
Vaetutase faet the cleath porrealt Vhs C\uet ha iheolared
that “Ta pury (hat oust Choa between Fibs Thnk vibe
brent anal Capital panaestinient ean do Litthe teen 7
petal fas mart dery yb loae: threat “4 Vite. haa’ oaks athe rine ;
the community ate the yMestion at tite or dhewih Riat.
ath) bk reapolas ISIS ase ded.) Phe wrant of discretion toa.
sebiteheihiy ju WEVes the conseience of the COMET
the fullest appheation im any given case. ‘Thus ine
arcuineahist full ciseretion, petitioner's counsel
are oon reality stating that the conscience of the COM
munity shonld net be brought. fully te bear on the.
question of sentenee, Df a pe salty jury were required
tay sepopely prese ribed standards, then hy the authority
ant Woithe es each side wottld be able te exclude:
hy catse: those jirers Whe, though they would? not .
avtomatiead Vete qeaunst oa death sentence, stated
that thes Were in disdereement with the standards and
Wwarttla cota teapply them. Phe resultine jue woth.
there Dy he tess representative o f the COME thew
Wiis een isioned: hy the We the rs pron dleeaston,
Petitioner asserts that the standardless penalty pre
ceyting denies resuhurity and equality. "This is hot
correct, As ™ stated in Dai ote Anderson, suprd, uo
V.C..688, G1 47 Pid 117, 127-128, 73 CabLRptr. 2t,
bake. equal protection 1s afforded decease every per
on has the Suine ehanee for lenieney as well as the
ane possthrlity vat reece ine the maximuain penaley,
‘Thus there as nothine discriminatory in the pre
cedinns
Wee i
etatuotier on etYect derianmds that all capital defend’ j
e . . as oe ,
pits tv oqtadly: deprived of the benefleentetfeet. of a.
Hv s Wiestramed pity. sviipeatha. and other meres
r, - a y . ‘
abelypeetions Phe prinenite of equatity in eapitad
|
enteneipe mak be titelleetually satistvine.- but. we:
cantot believe that the Constitution requires Hirisedie
Litre Pelhainan eoptal prriritstinnecnit fo return to a seu.
. , .
"
o
» ,
.
> >.
a
7
>
4 ad
‘
>
’ 7
. ; *
*
:
*
> +
» ®
; 4
a7 .
>
‘ \
.
°
. = *
:
2
.
2
.
:
F *
.
’ ° ad "
7 r :
ol
7
7
*
’ ; 7 ’ '
* .
’
. >
°7
. . “
‘
.
*
7 ’
°
2
7
*
e
o@,
y
$
°
°
.
e-*
’
’
*
” -
>
.
*
wo
a
eee”
“
“*
°
.
>
v
oe
.
°
’
a*
.
o
;
ot
; ’
° °
e
o?
. ’
eo ’ °
P :
F °
a
*
.
pot.
°
°
2
*
° ”
a
2
°
os
. .
+ .
ee
e
° ; %
. e
e
° ©
°
e
a
ae °
e . °
*
-
7 ie
J
2
°
+ >
o
*
*
°*e
e . a
© tow? “beer evans amd capt:
chupem fot the ha
Deter elparls pirohih
petetoabated Ao per
f eupital OMT etyee
shoe oh elvanee the
wt iy oumemmtnn bbe
potion bits cog,
ae
.
doctrine fer,
+ hee colanede
ee ie, Ker’
‘ E Pee Odes ‘slewtnneons,
Se ts ceenfent nem
+ Comet Of Append 7
<deld peotate a 4 N pope
P Gontil ratte Sree
1. > t. i; 0° Daf
~~,
ov bitigl 7 leinnts W bintever :
” votot panalty de
theo tbe.
ws ool, LT ning
the “dieteije whieh
rlacdt putuilty
he retire
of pecubarity
pe venel the tet renal
q stele
.
y* bee
fried tention .
ether trine, te °
: 20
‘and state levislatures from effectuating a substan-
five end net? comstitutionally denied them, by
Whatever pe raised files Hiettis these bodies consider
est appropriate.” Note, 109 C, "a. |. Rew. 67,
Str (DEW),
In this case, the national and state legislatures lees
‘ilesived to effectuate the substantive end of nizing
the actual incidence of the death penalty through
allowing juries free rem to exercise mermy rather than
te adhere to the demands of <triet justice, His incon:
eonvable that this end would be constitutionally denied
the lewislatures, and for that reason. the standardless
penalty trial is immune from the vagueness attack.
In addition, a ready answer has been provided to
petitioner's contention that the ad hoe judements
hecessariiy made Iny Juries in capital sentencing are
per se. unconstitutional : ;
“[T]nto the process of weighing .. . consider-
Hons Phearing upon vagueness} there enters that
principle whieh is always a force in the Court's
deliberations, precisely beeause the Court ix
charged with the preservation, in balance, of a
complex lot of social and individual values: the
principle of necessity. The maintenance of order
is the precondition of any freedom in a society,
and where the subject matter of regulation ix
stich as to make unfeasible modes of law adminis
tration other than those whieh involve ad hoe
judgments, considerable presstires are eréated in
faver of permitting an ad hoe judgement scheme.”
Id. at 9%,
Furthermore the sentencing function is no less par-
tieularized, i0:, ad hoc, when carried out by a judge
/
21
*
in any criminal case. Both jury sentencing in a eapi-
‘tal case and sentencing by a judge are similar in that
the Legislature has prescribed the punishments avail-
able; in both it has authorized a specified body to
make @ choice within legally preseribed limits. A de-
fendant’s potential for rehabilitation is only one of a
number of factors that a judge considers in determin-
‘ing what sentence to impose. He must also consider
the community's needs for protection. No specific
standard controls the exercise of a trial judge's dis-
cretion and no court has ever intimated, let alone held,
that the defendant's rights are thers ‘by violated. In re
Anderson, 69 A.C, 638, 652, 447 P2d 117 i, 126-127, 73
CaLRptr. 21, 30631. oignes =o = 0
‘In cone duding. this argument, we direct the at-
tention of the Court to-the conclusions of the body.
whieli has made the most authoritative and xhaustive
i to date of capital punishment :
here are strong reasons for believing that it
= st inevitably be found impracticable to define
a class of murders in which alone the infliction
of the death penalty is appropriate. The crux of
the matter ix that any ‘legal definition must be
expressed in terms of objec tive characteristics of
the offense, whereas the choice of the appropriate
penalty, must be based on a much wider range of
considerations, which cannot be defined but are
essentially a matter for the exercise ef disere-
- tion.” Roy al Commission “on Capital Punishment,
1949-1959 Report 173. ~ 4
, a
If THIS COURT SHOULD FIND THE STANDARDLESS PENALTY
TRIAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
ARKANSAS PRACTICR DISTINGUISHING FEATURES oF
CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE WOULD WARRANT REFUSAL To
STRIKE DOWN THE CALIFORNIA PRACTICE
Net contentine batioel! with an attack om the stand
“s iMdless penalty determination jer ose, pretittonenr ta
nide tiueh of certian dspeets of Arhatisas petevoulinne
ted praetice Whieh te atlewed to retder the standard
lees penalty delerniniation Uneonstititional as pre
stim in Arhanes. We disnaree with thts eemteniticeny,
bat Daeliewe af A rte have te te preoticdenet the tisk
Jeb atewertie if Per our part, we will content ons
nahh ae with peereetan ait that Chee proetrbiorates ol
Vihatiogs proetion de net exist i Catitorniua TE
hat tnattes, are probably tet oenenral throuchout the-
beintnaen Weer ntisrureest that Thies Cited etige cel titeeceteetetent eon
lity et the Nthatieas practice Woetthel thet justify a
: setupelias thickens ite tee the stamdandh penpals preowned
iti ne si
Potithenien allewes that en Arhageas ondy a jury tenses
Deteeranntnne Whiether, ee ee et convicted oho euipiital
‘ renee tm ber statfen thy oils ath iv rialty iatul that a pany
vendiet of cheath - tietialls beeataatites Uhertgs giv faerie aa
Hidietal veview.s bo Culifoeuin, be contenant. a aan
- tendd cote Cheat teotae coh peetnsalt yy tpaae Lee wanted (‘al Pony
4 ah USOT Pan catew evened, pdtetal vewtew cst Teeliia
ilevsth) vewedtet ts ecdels uviuthiblh
a ti hi je ith sal i ‘ Finn me baacot he 1G oy The*Vhe
trial, the teoel iwilew bey ths shuts te review the
é wor ew te dedangentive whathe voite diet tnnels \* TOL
. ~~
f
23
Wedhettient the werht ot She ev ilenioe stipperte The
jury *s verdict, te tt te dhewteles at hows tot, ter
hits ghee paaver te teduce the potalty te tite un.
priscnmient.” Te re Ddorsen, GAC GS. GON.
M7 Pd 17, PT CabRpte. tt, 2s Cae
Tu :
Vhs tidietal restew aets 4 ity cebes beets
sbosedel sauragist aehuteaey wars aetoon
.
While the Stripers titer Cecio bie tee peeve ns sttely te
readiioe the «heath whiten, glad coat refains a lari
Heeersentites aed eettigel oven -stheh ctite Biever thy the sethe
bisatael, thie Califor “a Shapers Hite Opeth. Deve titties
ats alecathy seiebactewetits ened is tee peetialty Vey VHA Eth Ske
Hihewenthy pre piebietal attest aay emner on thy protoalty -
polacaner aol an Crd, seu People: oe Mines OF Cabo dot
ee Pd IN, ie of ‘ul Ve jete ie’ (Uhl bwaith apeprt venta,
ter Chee eenelt poltiane fhe satiie stameband of barmilesso Vhyet
*
Which Apylion tn trials peomenatls
Viv cucbebitacae the tracking puaerate anctenond tor the
\ sotest at tionality ot Ole ttecle Veaebnet ee
petattertien trate thaat, wha coobenbeanigeel with the stand
tables pootalty Getal at das the You of vertiatly-
comply AL eee fee ke teat been tty nt it. jedi itty
“befertanttyation for wont of televandt Chetiial tutor
Cherte Coote b rete th elite ind i} mat lihehy teers Thibuect jiteoonnl
dhuiniuy a ottehe colt prety alta tes i! witbicnet mettticotsy
hts perty thee sttiet olf teeritatiation Whale wie ade
wot’ aces jet thes at anne Ot Wee theebe Oh “ Califieenia 4
aonee cel the tive atiates whieh ek b dertinmeuats tivial .
ith walt aad prrrielt ys beetnre dedowenetanoed op epeitali
pre oeadinny Nt thine peeamerabine * oViedetiwe of Che ets
‘ riteestistiee : Abi Pontadyy thy ory the ahels tobanet
a
~“’
However, thee extremely
de hondiints preelides any one.
ition aoainest Dodtane from
Wake the forecoine sta
— Hees? the faet that
teh oot firetidecwrme ton
7 ne how that the per
heathy rvhitences is jhe-
he peereentince Of whites
mee De coterall percentage,
ihe ehann af racial die
ol tthe death j" nalty oon
7 we stibet, that) those
penalty Cal owhitel) allow
hewn pores arbitra
resent Arkitusas are far
to pepeonit tn Californie
’ hel hebdine that thy
Hithoonetitutional Wy
a” ryt jrewnthe ath tas uphill
the -usstne af at eon
iv Othe Caniet. However,
hh come titurtrotiadl aaas de ye
wetarabdons Whiehl onibandpe
pepene oritiul fis thy Ciosnpet
copter Jrteceulire. on oat thy
jtdvvobdeate anf thee -onetitution
rilont the taek of rebuttine
i Peeeeber teen it) Arhoatren
>
26
capital sentencing that may arise frome the factual
data compiled by petitioner.’ We do, however, make
the observation that petitioner has sueceeded in estab
lishing no nexus whatseever between the claimed
racial discrimination and the-laek of standards char
“acterizing the procedure for determining penalty in
capital cases. PP Arkansas jurors are, as petitioner
has stiewested, bent on racial discrimination, there is
ne reason Whatever te believe that they wall be de
terved in earmyiig out sueh discrimination by any’§
dustrietion or combination of ist riet bons Which oa
idee may read to them,
Put fit be assumed that petitioner has established
Helo a nexus between the alleged) racial diserimina
thon and the standardless penalty trial as te show that
the latter catises, contributes teor tn ANY WAY eNreer,
bates the former, the anawer is te confine the renedy
tothe particular problem. We believe we have demen
trateal the overall amehorative affcdts of a stamdare
Jems penalty proceodime,. (iiven these effeets. the
ostandarctess proceeding shold be refained Hhsotar as
prosstble, cd abanidertiec! only to the extent necessary
to etiresthe possible sub tantive evil of racial «liserim
Haition. Perhaps the MSW er, then, is fe require stand
ards Cand perhaps Ditiiveated tials as well) only in
rape trials, where Vapes is eapatalls punishable, Vhe
restriction of a eonstituttonal requirement of lecishe
tively Hipaasedt standards for the ourdanee of partes
An penalty determinations te rape triads would of pe
Hitioner’s hypothesis about the tests betwern racial
dis@rimination and standardles: poenalts trigats { Trite,
¢
os
td
=
have the effect of surgically going to the root of racial
—Uiserimination in eapital sentencing without enmpley
dug the meat-axe procedure of requirtne standards tn.
all death pen: ty determinations or of unwarrauitedly
denying the general power of states to impose capital
purishinent for rape. ‘
* CONCLUSION
This Court should Uupliold thee Sota Practhee of al
lowing juries in capital « CuLSes free wremt te exercise
their natural tuelinations to spare the defendant, with
OLE Tpostniee on them standards Witch would tievtt
ably have the effect ot Melmine the jury ‘toward
Iiposing: strict justice rather Phan rantitie” meres
SIs any event, this Court) sheuld make no. broad
holding that standardless pemalt{ triads are’ uneotsts
tutional, resardless of local veiriations and: procedures
Which effectively guard avatost-arbiteary jury aetioty
Dated, San’ Mranetseo, Cabltornia,
Mebruary Po: 1969,
Respeethiully sabanitted,
Pitovas@. Lyxeu,
Attorney thenorel af the State I wll 1
, %
° Npue ie We Db avtes, die
Abstotant Attorney General of the Siate of Cale
.
rr rT
Ronni Ro Gian teen:
Fe jruts Attartes (reneral of the Stat finulit tie
Ciro RR. Nok,
Deputy \tt mney lietioral ef the Stateodt wl f wie
« e
' Allorme ys tor toes Caria,
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.