Petition — Simmons v. North Carolina

Supreme Court brief1976

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1975

No .

ERNEST RAY SIMMONS,

Petitioner,

STATE. OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

PLTITTON FOR WRI OP CERTIORARI

7O THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH

CAROLINA '

THOMAS W. HENSON

Ezzell & Henson

2373 Sunset Avenue

Rocky Mount, Nor.a Carolina

27801

JAG! CREEN DERG

JAMES M. NABRUY, ITT

PEGGY C. DAVIS

DAVID E, KeliDALL

10 Columbus Circle

New York, New York 10019

ANTHONY G. AMSTERDAM :

Stantord University Law School _

Stanford, California 94305

ADAM STEIN

CHARLES L. BECTON

Chambers, Stein, Ferguson &

Becton

157 East Rosemary Street

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

27514

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER ; i

INDEX

Page

Citation to Opinion Below ..ccccccccccccccccisccccccece 1

JUTISGICCION woccccdecccccccccscseccscccccssecsecsececece 1

Questions: PreBented ...scccccccccccccsessccesessecsesece 2

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved ....ee. 2

Statement Of the Case cocccccccccecscccccesesscsessesece 3

How the Federal Ouestions Were Raised and Decided

Below “ene vnenoeneeenerewneeneeneneeneneeneenreeeeeneeeneeeee ee ee ee *# © © & © 14

Reasons for Granting the Writ

I. The Court Should Grant Certiorari To

Consider Whether The Imposition And

Carrying Out Of The Sentence Of beath

For The Crime Of Murder Under The Law

Of North Carolina Violates The Eighth

Or Fourteenth Amendnent To The Consti-

Gueion OF The United States ccccccesoesocceses 17

II. The Court Shovld Grant Certiorari To

Consider Whether The Exclusion For Cause

of Three Veniremen On The Grounds Of Their

Lxpressed Attitudes Toward The Death Penalty

Violated Petitioner's Rights Under The Sixth

And rourteenth Amendments To The Constitution

Of The’ United States ciccccceccccccccccesceces 18

A. The Test of Exclusion Applied by the

Court Below Did Not Meet the Minimum

Standards Required by the Constitution

As Constrved in Witherspoon v. Tllinois,

391 U.S. 510 (1968)... ccccccccccccccccecce 23

B. The Exclusion of Veniremen with Con-

scientious Scruples Against Capital

Punishment Deprived Petitioner of His

Sixth Amendment Richt to a Representative

Jury e*eeevreeeeeveeeeeeveeneeeewneeeveewn een eeeeeeeeee 28

IIt. The Court Shovld Grant Certiorari

To Consider Whether The Admission

Of A Law Enforcement Officer's

Recapitulation Of Petitioner's

Oral Confessions, When This Recapit-

ulation Was Partially Based Upon The

Officer's Reeollection Of A Composite

Story kelated By Both Petitioner And

A Co-Defendant (Who Did Not Testify

At Petitioner's Trial) And Partially

Upon Petitioner's Apparent Acquiescence

In The Statements Of His Co-Defendant,

Violated Petitioner's Right To Be Con-

fronted With The Witnesses Against Him,

Guaranteed Py The Sixth Amendment ‘to

The Constitution Of The United Stites,

To Be Free From Compulsory Self-Incrin-

ination, Guaranteed By The Fifth

Wween@ament And Yo Be Afforded Due Process

Of Law, Guaranteed By The Fourteenth

AMENAGMENC. cccccccrccccvcesesecessssseese

Conclusion “ee eeeeeeeeeaeeeneaee ewe eeaenwmweerenwnwneweereneer rr err ere

Appendix A: State Lo Simmons, oC , 213 S.E.2a

280 (1978S) cccccccceeceeseeeceseceereeseesesesese

Appendix B: Pp. 11-51, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, Dillard

v. North Carolina, No. 73-6875 (filed June 1l,

ee re en ee ee ee ee ee

EOFS) cccceseceseseeseesesecsesdeseseecroewmesneeseces

Appendix C: Pp. 72-78, Petition for Writ of Certiorari

to the Supreme Court of Florida, Hallman vy.

TABLE OF CASES

Alecorta v. Texas, 355 U.8.° 28 (1957) ..ccccecsescccssses

Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 (1969)... cccccccccccecs

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968)... ceeeee

Dillard v. North Carolina, No. 73-6875 (filed June

BL, 1974) cccccccccccccccccessescccsccececceooeses

Fowler v. North Caroiina, No. 73-7031 Ce cccccccccccccce

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) ..c.ceeeees

Hallman v. Florida, No. 74-6168 (filed March 1l, 1975).

‘

Page

23,27

Harris v. Texas, 403 U.S. 947 (1971), rev'g 457 S.W.2d

903 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. 1970) (sub nom. Harris

Vv. State “ese enevreneneeeeneeneenreeeeewneeeneeeeeeevreeneeeeeeeeneeeen eee

Hovila v. State, Texas Ct. Crim. App. No. 49,396

(April 30, LOTS} choccccccecesvspecsdeceeseoccesoce

Jaggers v. Commonwealth, 439 S.W.2d 580 (Ky. Ct.

App. 1968), rev'd per cur. sub nom Jaggers

Ve Kentucky, 403 i? 946 bg} ae rrr rrr rrT Te ee

Marion v. Beto, 434 F.2d 29 (CAS BUTS) Gocceeevecetbecss

Mathis Ve New Jersey, 403 v.88. GAG CAGED os 0u6 a0 6 aess ae

Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 (1970). ..ccccccesccccoecs

Mesarosh v. United States, 351 U.S. 1 (1956)... cccccece

Miller Ve Cox, 457 ¥.2d 700 (CA4 BOE ce weedtensbdene 6%

Miller Ve Pate, 386 * 1] SONS. wa cde kone tense cese

Miranda Ve Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) “*ee ee een neneeenee

Moone y Ve Holohan, 294 a os 103 FSS SS) cccsuceocedéccesed

Napuc Ve lllincis, 360 U.S.264 CEORO catoncaseeeeeesses

People v. Speck, 41 111. 24 177, 242 N.E.2da 268 (1968),

rev'd per cur. sub nom. Speck v. Illinois, 403

WeBeo Gd CREAR) 66066060000606066606660600H08 050686

Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942) .ccececeecoeeccccees

State v. Adans, 76 Wash. 2d 650, 458 P.2d 558 (1969),

rev'd per cur. sub nom. Adams v. Washington.......

‘s

State v. Jarrette, 284 N.C. 625, 202 S.E.2da 721 (1974).

State v. Mathis, 52 N.J. 238, 245 A.2d 26 (1968), rev'd

per cur. sub nom. Mathis v. New Jersey, 403 U.S.

946 CROPS nec 6006 4 666606065006 066506000608 60069%

State v. Silver, _N.C.__, 213 S.E.2d 247 (1975)....06-

State v. Waddell, 282 N.C. 431, 194 S.E.2d 19 (1973)...

State v. Williams, __N.C.__, 212 S.E.2d 113 (1975).....

State v. Young, N.C. Sup. Ct. No. 46 (Mecklenburg

County, Spring Term 1975) (June 6, 1975). ...cceeees

444

Page

eee

United States ex rel. Staino v. Brierly, 387 F.2d

597 (CA3 Pee eheédedsacudechsawoeted6acessed sé cuedeeke

United States v. Hale, 43 U.S.L.W. 4806 (U.S.,1975)....

White Ve Ragen, 324 U.S. 760 ee

Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).....

Statutes:

28 U Be Pky yg) Ree “vee ee eee ener eneeeeeune ewe een eer eenenee

B.C. Gon. Stats Baerare tec Was BOOP) 66s eessoesese

614-17 (1974 Supp.) ne © ® @ ee @ rf © © ©

18,23,25,

§15-187 (repl. vol. 1975)...... eevvece

615-185 (repl. vol. 1975). “ee # © oe

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1975

No. 75-

ERNEST RAY SIMMONS,

Petitioner,

oe. *

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

rn ve * ) wer 7? Gn BF “is ih oe bP Oe 4k a

DTITION FOR WRIT Ci CERTIORARI

TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH

CAROLINA

Petitioner prays that a writ of certiorari ‘issue to review

the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of North Carolina

entered on April 14, 1975.

CITATION TO OPINION BELOW

The opinion of the Supreme Court f£ North Carolina is

reported at __N.C.__, 213 $.E.2a 280 (1975), and is set out in’

Appendix A hereto, pp. la-1l2a, infra.

JURTSDICTION

The judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina was

entered on April 14, 1975, and is set out in Appendix A hereto.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §1257(3),

petitioner having asserted below and asserting here deprivation

of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States.

oo. oe eee

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the imposition and carrying out of the sentence

of death for the crime of murder under the law of North Carolina

violates the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment to the ConstituLlion

of the United States?

2. Whether the exclusion for cause of three veniremen on

the grounds of their expressed attitudes toward the death penalty

violated petitioner's rights under the Sixth or Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

3. w#&rmether the admission of a law enforcewent officer's

recapitulation of petitioner's oral confessions, when this recapi-

tulation ware partially based upon the officer's recollection of

a composite story related by both petitioner and a co-defendant

(who did not testify at petitioner's *rial) and partially upon

petitioner's apparent acquiescence in the statements of, his co-

Gefendant, violated petitioner's right to be confronted with the

witnesses against him, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendrent to the

Constitution of the United States, to be free from compulsory

self{-incrimination, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and to be

afforded due process of law, guaranteed by the Fourteenth

Amendment? |

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

l. This case involves the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth und Four-

teenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

2. This case also involves the following provisions of

the General Statutes of North Carolina:

614-)7 (repl. vol. 1969): “Murder in the first and

second degree defined; punisiuwent.--A murder which

shall be perpetrated by means of poison, lying in

wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any

other kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated

killing, or which shell be committed in the perpetra-

tion or attempt to perpetrate any arson, rape,

robbery, burglary or other felony, shall be deemed

to be murder in the first degree and shall be

punished with death: Provided, if at the time of

rendering its verdict in open court, the jury shall

£0 recommend, the punislurent shall be imprisonment

for life in the State's prison, and the court shall

so instruct the jury. Ali other kinds. of murder

slall be deemed murder in the second degree, and

shall be punished with imprisonment of not less:

than two nor more than thirty years in the State's

prison." 1/

§15-187 (rep). vol. 1975): “Death by adminietration _

of Jethal gas.--Death by electrocution under sentence

of law is hereby abolished and death by the adminis-

tration of lethal gas substituted therefor."

§15-158 (repl. vol. 1975): “Manner and place of

execution.--The mode of executing a death sentence

must im every case be by causing the convict or

felon to inhale lethal gas of sufficient. quantity

to cause death, and the administration of such

lethal vas must be continued until such convict

or felon is dezd; and when any person, convict

or felon shall be senteaced by eny court of Ure

State having competent jurisdiction to he so

executed, such pun!’ shment shall only be inflicted

within a permanent death chamber which the super-

intendent of the State penitentiary is hereby

authorized and directed to provide within the walls

of the North Carolina penitentiary at Raleigh, North

Carclina. The superintendent of the State penitentiary

shall also cause to be provided, in conformity with

this article and approved by the Governor and Council

of State, the necessary appliances for the infliction

of the punishment of dezth in accordzence with’ the

reguirenents of this article."

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the

judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, entered on

l/ As construed in State v. Waddell, 282 N.C. 431, 194 S.E.2d

19 (1973).

“_

April 14, 1975, affirming petitioner's conviction and sentence

of death. Petitioner, Ernest Ray Simmons, an indigent black

male, was sentenced to death in the Nash County Superior Court

on June 13, 1974, wpon conviction for the first degree murder

of Mrs. Mary C. Powell, a white female.

2/ .Petitioner's sentence of death was imposed under N.C. Gen.

14-17 f(repl. vol. 196%) (murder) as construed in State v.

Waddell, 282 N.C. 431, 194 S.E.2d 19 (1973). The North Carolina

Legislature subsey.cntly enacted a statue, S.B. 157, Chap. 1201,

1°73 Scss. (2nd fess. 1974), effective April 8, 1974, which

slightly altered the definition of first Cegree murder. The

new: first degree murder etatute, now codified as N.C. Gen. Stat.

€14-]7° (1974 supp.), provices:

"A murder which shall be perpetrated by means ‘

of poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving,

torture, or by any other kind of willful, @clibcrat

and premeditajyed killing,’ or which shall be committca

in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any

arson, rape, robbery, kidnapping, burglary or other

felony, shell be deemed to be murder in the first

decree and shell be punished with death. All other

kindr of murder shall be deemed murder in the second

degree, and shall be punished by imprisonment for a

term of net less than two years nor more than life

imprisonment in the State's prison.”

The 1974 legislation, however, is not involved in this case.

Por the North Carolina Supreme Court has expressly held, with

three Justices dissenting, that the enactment of that legislation

did not affect death sentences imposed under the anterior State

v. Waddell procedure. State v. Williams, _ N.C... 212 S.E.2d

113, 119-120 (1975) (affirming a death sentence for rape). .

Subsequent to its Wiliams opinion, the court hps affirmed death

sentences imposed for YWirst degree murders comuitted before

April 8, 1974, with Chief Justice Sharp dissenting on the grounds

expressed in her dissent in State v. Jarrette, 284 N.C. 625,

202 S.F.2d 721, 747-750 (1974), and with Mr. Justice Copeland

and Mr. Justice Rxum dissentina on the grounds expressed in

their dissefits in State v. Williams, N.C... 212 S.E.2da 113,

121-123 (1975). See, e.g., State _v. Wetmore, N.C. Gup. Ct. No.

47 (Rowan County, Spring Term 1°75) (June 6, 1975); State v.

Young, N.C. Sup. Ct. No. 46 (Mecklenburg County, Spring Term

1975) (June 6, 1975).

Petitioner was indicted on January 28, 1974, for the murder

of Mrs. Powell “in the perpetration of the felony crime of

burglary and the attemptee perpetration of the felony crime of

robbery.” R. 3. The last person to see the 8&5 year old Mrs.

Powell alive was a neiahbor who had cut wood and set it on her

front porch; he saw her at 5:00 p.n., December 13. R. 34.

Another neighbor had been in her farmyard at 9:00 a.m., December

14, to cut wood but had not seen her. R. 42. A motorist recalled

passing Mrs. Powell's house between 6:90 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.,

December 13, and seeing a parked car fifteen to twenty feet off

7 . . ™ . L _ . _ »* 7? 2 y * 7 — 7

Line soda si @ Geave way jbo. Let a2itah mite. Poweia'S Grave Weiy e KR. 44

45. Two other passersby also novliced a car in this driveway at

approximately 9:00 p.m. R. 46, °49. None of these witnesses

saw anyone in or near this parked car. A neighbor who drove hy

Mrs. Powell's house between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. the nex

night, December 14, remarked that the house was “all lit up."

3/ the jury was instructed, however, that:

“Ti you are satisfied beyond a reasonable

Goubt that the defendant Ernest Ray Simmons,

while either in the course of an attempted

armed robbery or while comitting a burglary

and that either of these proximately caused

the death of Mary C. Powell [sic], it would be

your duty to return a verdict of guilty of

murder in the first degree."

R. 168 (emphasis added).

4/ The lone motorist described the parked car as “[s)omething

like a ‘68 or ‘GY Roadrunner, orange with a light top... .

{with} fluorescent stripes going down the sides of the car."

— 2

Mrs. Powell's dead body was discovered lying on the floor

of the Powell home by a neighbor at 6:00 a.m., December 15, 19737

death had been caused by blood loss due to a shotgun wound in

the right buttock, R. 51. A pathologist concluded that Mrs.

-owell nad been dead for at least» one day at the time of the

December 16 autopry,.and perhaps es many as two or three dayé.

R. 53. Investigators discovered a hole “about the size of a

quarter or just a mite larger,” R. 57, in one of the glass panes

of the front door. There was glass on the floor of the front

room, and Mrs. Powell's body was lying by the fireplace in this

+ . - » . .

room. The wedding from ea .12 gauge shotgun shell was discovered

mroximately six to eight feet from the body, and a spent blue

_2/

~L2 geuge Reminglon Pelers Vielury sholyun sheil Was iound on

the drivewzy about 150 feet. from the house, R. 58, 73, 141.

Severul rooms of the house hed been ransacked: drawers had been

4 / cont'd.

R. 44. Also, the rear end of the automobile “might have been

raised up just a little." Ibid. The other driver testified that

“it looked like a Roadrunner to we and it was jacked up behind

. « « « The car was sort of an orange color and [sic] a beige

top." R. 46-47. This motorist’s passenger described the parked

cur as “an orange Roadrunner with a beige looking top, beige

streaks on the side and it was jacked up behind.” R. 49.

5 / The investigator who found this described it as a “very

cownon brand” of shell: “people hunt on the farm ail the time."

R. 59.

7 .

opened, a metal chest had been uncovered and papers had been

strewn on the floor. P. 69-70. A December 14, 1973, newspaper

was discovered in the mailbox, and check stubs were found in the

‘kitchen with dates as late as December 13. R. 77-78.

Whe chief uiidiieie against petitioner was a series of three

oral confessions which he made to Sheriff Glenn Womble, who

testified tiat he warnec petitioner of his caostitutional right

to silence and to the assistauce of counsel on each occasion

before, interrogation ‘and that petitioner orally waived these

rights each time. Sheriff Womble recapitulated petitioner's

December 20, 1973, confession from memory:

"Ke [petitioner] told me that he went to

Martha Jones’. That Frank James Silver [6/}

cane to Martha Jones’, brought his wife, his

Sister and his brother. That he -- and that

Simaons [petitioner] and Silves left on [sic]

Silver's car and went out tou Mrs. Powell's

home, Grove by the house, parked on the rightr

hand side of the road, got down, walked across

the highway, clumb over a fence, walked through

a lot -- and she had a fence running parallel

with the north driveway -- they clumb over the

fence there. When tley clumb over the fence

there, Silver stayed there. . Simmons went up

eee ee

6/ Frank James Silver was also indicted and tried for the murce

of Mrs. Powell, and at.a separate trial from petitioner's, he

was found guilty of first*degree murder and sentenced to death.

The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed this conviction on the ~

ground that the trial court had admitted Silver's December 22,

1973, confession without properly determining whether it had been

tainted by a possibly involuntary confession on December 20.

State v. Silver, _N.C.._,. 213 S.E.2d 247; (1975).

to the house, walked around the house, stepped

up on the back step to the back porch, looked

in the TV room and said that she was looking

at TV and said she had a big dog in there, He

left, came back and told Silver that she was

looking at TV but said she had a dog in there,

a big dog in there, and he wasn't going in there

without a gun; and they got on -- they went back

to the car, got on [sic] the car and went back

to Martha Jones‘ home to get Simmons’ gun.

Simmons said rid Martha wouldn't let him have

it, didn't want him to take it, so he asked

Silver if he knew where he could get a gun

and said that Silver said, ‘Come on.' Said

they went to Driver's store, Silver went in

and boucht four shells, it was raining,

Simmons set in the car. Said they got im the

car and went to Silver's father's home --

which Silver was living there [sic] with his

father, out on 43 -- drove up to the house and

both of them’ went in the hovse, went to the

front bedroom on the left, raised the mattress

up and got a single barrell [sic] -~- this single

barrel shotgun here -- from under the bed, and

the left gnd went back to Mrs. Powell's but they

stopped this time just before they got tober

house.

They pulied pp in a driveway at an old abandoned

house on the right-hand side of the road going toward

Hickory -- which would ke on the opposite side of

the road from Mrs. Powell's home. They walked down

the highway to the south drive. It is a circular

drive that goes up in her house, they cal) it the

south drive and “the north, it circles all the way

round and comes back out. Simmons said they walked

up the drives they got just a few steps up from the

highwey, that Silver was loading the gun.and said

it went off. He unbreeched it, a shell flew out.

Simmons said that both of them looked for the shed!,

that Silver struck some matches and they both looked

until Mre. Powell -- he said the lights » s on at

her house and they saw her come to the front door

and looked out the window and they left, walked

back up the highway toward where the car was parked

ana there's another @rive that turns to the right,

goes Gown to Almeta Mills' home.

They walked down that drive, crawled over the

fence, walked through the pasture, came up to her

south drive right in the front of the car shed --

that's a little water pump house there. They clumb

over the fence right there. Simmons said he was in

the front, Silver was behind thhim and Silver

had the gun, walked to the back porch step,

stepped up on the step, evoked in the Tv

room and did not see her, walked around the

back of the house, around to her bedroom

window on the north side of the house,

looked in the bedroom window, did not see

her; walked on around to the front of the

house, Simmons still in the front, Silver

right behind hin.

Simnons said he stepped up on the front

porch and that Silver was on the step right

behind him. Said when he stepped up on the

porch he stepped back and told Silver that

she was poking in the fire. He stepped back

on the step, Silver stepped up on the porch

and shot her. He said then that he was wear-

ing gloves and Silver did not have on any

gloves. The he opened the front door, it

waen't Jocked, taken hold of it and went

in. Said Mrs. Powell was lying in front

of the fireplace on her back with her face

vp and said that she was breathing but

she never moved or never spoke.

Ynat he went into the bedroom to the Jeft,

searched through some arawers in there and

came hack out in the room that she was in

and he and Silver both went into the den,

Looked through the den -= that's where the

TV was that they called the TV room -- walked

down # little hallway by the bathroom, went

into her kedroon. Simnons said he pulled

the little drawer open to the night table

setting besides of her bed; that Silver

reached Gown in there, picked up this little

o25 automatic, put it in his pocket. Simmons

said he piched up a box that had some 50/ pieces

in it and he gave the 50s pieces to Silver.

Silvgr put them in his pocket. Them Silver

went back in the room where Mrs. Powell was,

ana then he got a metal box ovt of her closet,

looked through the metal box. Told me he didn't

remember getting anything out of the metal box.

He went into the front bedroom then,

looked through things in there and didn't

get anything in there, walked hack into the

room where Mrs. Powel! and Silver was, went

back in the room to the left, the first room

they went in and he got this double barrel. shot-

gun and this rifle. Said he cane out, came out

into the room where they were, that he and Silver

both went out the front door, walked around the

house to the car shed, went under the si.elter

where the car was, opened the door, looked

through the car, looked through the pocket of

the car end all and said they @id not find ,

anything there, and he left and went back down

the south drive and on back to the car, got in

the car and left, went back to Silver's hone,

put the gun -~ both of thu went in the house,

. put the gun back ander the mattress in the front

bedroom and left there, went to his house and

before he qot to his house that Silver had two

shells, thet he gave him the two ‘Shells; he put

them in the chotgun anda Jeft the shotgun and

the rifle at his howe,

Ne left. the shotgun and the rifle:.at Simnons'

bone, carried them beck to Simmons’ home, Weft that.

Then he anc Silver left there and went down to

Mertha Jones' howe and that Silver got his wife,

his sister and his brother md left and said he

left in a few minutes and walked back to his

home,"

R. 103-106. Sheriff Wonble testified that the next day, December

; , :

21, in the presence of Frank James Silver, petitioner "made tha

same statement” as he had made on becenmber 20. R. 107. On

December 22, pehitioner requested the police to allow him to

“re-run the route" he and Silver had taken on becember 13, and

during this journey, he gave a rambling statement that conformed

with his December 20 confession. R. 106-113.

2/ After a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury,

the trial court ruled all three of these ctatenents admissible:

"All right. Let the record show then at the

end of the voir dire hearing, the Court finds

as a fact that on the dates of December 20, 21,

—"

On cross-exemination Sheriff Womble testified that he had

meade notes during the various interviews with petitioner and

Silver which, while "not verbatim," reflected everything "material"

that the two men said. R..121.

Wien defence counsel was permitted to read these notes,

it was determined thet only one entry, for December 20, referred

to petitioner. In its entirety, thib entry read:

"*Hecember 20, 1973, Exnest hay Silver [sic],

¢ ,

black male, 37, route five, Roc) Y Mount. TI

got with Fy: % Silver at Martha J s* housc.

We went to Ractiord Drug, got one-filt of wine,

thie went ¢ 1% house and @dranked a little whit:

whi ske — did not a in quite ‘ half a pal -

Frank Grenk a little. Frank said, ‘Co n, Jet's

go get e shelis.' We went to Drive s store.

Prank went in and got fovr shells. We then went

to Vrank's house, aot a single barre! shot«

£x« unacse the he im the left front roon Wwe

t} ’ t to Powell's hovse. Frank cteppedc vu;

on tie’front porch and shot her. Frank |siec} said

Lrne: gshet hej ae FO

rp. 123. Sheriff Womble admitted that his notes reflected a

22, 1973, at the time of questioning th<

defendant that Glenn ©. Womble, Sherifi of

lash Countv, before receiving any statement

from the defendant, fully advised him of bis

right to remain silient [sicj; his right to

have counsel represent him; his right to have

the State pey for counsel if he could not

afford counse) and warned him of his possible

self-incrimination. That the defendant Lully

understood these rights; thet he freely,

voluntarily and understandingly waived his

right to remain silent and to have counsel

present at. any questioning. Any statements

the defendant made to the sheriff, Clewn O.

Womble, on December 20, 21 and 22, 1973 are

admissible in evidence. The defendant's ob-

jections to these questions are overruled."

R. 102-103.

composite story given by both petitioner and Silver:

"On

Ernest Rey Simmons. re-ran the route. They 5

oO!

j 127 130.

Spe Facally

of |what he

petitioner c

in he) po

in a car wit

left togeth

again asked

him because

" ,

drinks.

“peter

13, I9733

The pol

automatic pi

who hued pure

Victioi

$32.00, R.

the 22nd, Silver and

and

one part . . e« -«

at their recuest, Fren’

ere und told me

e told one

theix fories together

part and another

Wher

ULC e TF t

they both

I would

on what

done just

acreea

have

did over here, so and so said so and so and he

nied it, said that he didn't remember it.

They saw me write it down, that is what I mean

ey both agreed. No, sir, they didn't read it. I

ote down exactly what they said."

kxcept tor the facts in the becenber 20 entry relating

to petitioner, the Sheriff conceded that “the rest

Lestified petitioner said) . . . is conglomexated is

Frank James: Silver" said. R. 130,

tha Jones testified that one night in December, 1973,

ame to her house and reqvested his shotgun, which was

ssion. Shertly thereaiter, Frank Janes Silver arrived

»b a “red body end white top," R. Gf, and the’ two men

cr. An hour Jater, they returned, and petitioner

for his shotgun, but Ms. Jones refused to give it to

"tinje had been drinking" and “he acts funny when he

66. A country storekeeper sold Silver four .12 gauge

shotgun shells on the night of December

did not see petitioner on this occasion.

ice retrieved a chrome-plated .25 caliber Galese

stol with a simulated pear] handle from a yun deuler

hased the weapon from Frank James Silver on December

61; Silver had originally tried to sell this

pistol to him at 1:00 p.m., December 14, for $40.00, R. 60.

A fricnd of Mis. powell's testified that five years earlier

oi? «

he hed bought a pistol for her that was “similar” to this

handgun, but he “could not say whether that is the same pistol

or not." R. 56. Approximately a yar before her death, a deputy

sheriff had cleaned Mrs. Powell's pistol for her, and it was

"jdenlical” to the weapon the police obtained from the gun

he State introduced a .12 gauge single-barrel shotgun

which the police obtained from Frank Janes Silver's father

R. 113. Sherifi Womble testified that petitioner had told

ham tiis was the shotgun “that Silver had carried on the night

of December 13. R. 113. In the opinion’of a ballistics expert who

test fired this shotgun, the .12 gavge shotgun shell found on

Mrs. Powell's @riveway had been fired by this weapon. R. 147.

This expert aiso testified that the wadding found near Mrs. Powell's

bocy wae the kind that Remington-Peters ures in its shotgun shells.

qesercutngeninnintpetncerastintmemninedanneentnniegeaaadineaae *

&/ Mrs. Powell's cleaning woman testified that the yee ‘tol re-

txrieved by the police “hind of look like,” Mrs. Powell's

though the woman had only seen this weapon "glancing" at it while

Cleaning: “I never, you know, just paid close attention to it."

R. 38.

O/ The State also introduced e'sixteen-shot bolt action rifle

and a .12 guuge double-barcrel shotgun which were seized at

roner's house on*becember 20 when he was arrested. R. 115.

Sheriil Womble testified that petitioner told him he had taken

these weapons from Mrs. Powell's howe on the night of December 13.

R. 1i4. There were two Victory .12 gavage shells in the shotgun,

and petitioner told the Sheriff that Frank James Silver had given

him these shells on December 13. Ibid. Mrs. Powell's cleaning

woman testified that these two weapons "kind of Jooks like” a

rifle and s un she had seen in Mrs. Powel]'s home, although

she said she “ain't too sure" of her opinion. R. 38.

~*~

—- c

buring

capital punishwent, and three were excluded over petition.r's

ob vect3 ( the basis of their conscientious or religion:

scruple concerni the death penalty. R. 24, 3), 32, 34. At’

LOS

the cl] of t! ‘ r , the ‘jury was instructed that it

Cc } I ait tT? ‘ tne ( rity oj firel dGeare: m aie )

ne guilty, R. I1G/-1]65. A ve ict. of quailty v returned, nie

the 1 : - ¢ ecupon s tenced ype titioner to death. R. Il

On April 14,° 1975, t? Supreme Court of | th Ofrolini

afftarne pet ( , conviction and death sentence, with thr:

Justice cil t 1® ‘ z t the adeat pens | ye On Ap. i}

1975, ‘ § Lay execution of the judgment in

order t lic et £< writ of certiorari to be filed

mm tJ Cori ‘ On July.3, 1975, Mr. Justice White granted a:

ex.tc: ae unts Rugust 12, 1975, in which to file a

petition flor certlo.z °

Hie THE FED I, OUES' ‘S WERE RAISED AND

DECIDED BLLOW

I. Petitioner excepted to th trial court's ord sentlencine

him tu « th. Re. 169, Petitioner's Assignment of Error No. 2k

10/

the selection of the jury at petitioner's trial,

men were examined regarding their attitudes toward

1 to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, assertec

The action of the Court as set out in

xeeptlion No. 67 (RK p 169) in ordering the

death penelty in violation of the rights as

guarantecd by the Constitution cf the United

Petiti

ouer presented no evidence,

States and the State of North Carolina."

A majority of the North Carolina Supreinec Court rejected this

claim:

“Defendant assigns as error the entry of

the judgment of death: and presents the con-

tention that the death penalty as imposed In

North Carolina violates the principles of

Furman Vv. Georas , 408 U.S. 238, 92 &8.Ct. 2726;

33 L.Ud.2d 346. All of the contentions which

defendant presents under this assignment of

errot have been considered and rejected by

this Court dn niweerous recent cases. Seo, ©.9.,

St v. Lenpkine, 286 N.C. 497, 222 $.8.2d 106;

£ c Vv. Avery, fvpra; Stote v. Williams, 266 N.C.

422, 212 S.E.2d ll Nig State v. Sparks, 285 N.C.

631, 207 S.E.2€ JVl2; State v. Honeycutt, 285 N.C.

174, 203 S.E.2d 844; State v. Fowler, 285 N.C. 90,

203 S.E.2c 8033; State v. Dillard, 285 N.C. 72,

203 &.0.2d 6; State v. Noell, supra; State v.

Jarreite, 264 N.C. 625, 202 S.F.2d 721; State

Vv. Wadd }, 282 N.C. 431, 194 8.BE.20d 19. Gn

tie authority of there cases, this aesigument

of ¢ or is ove? ed.?

State v. § » _N.C.__, 213 S.E.2d¢ 280, 2913 App. A, infra,

Il. After three veniremen had been excluded over objection on

account of their conscientious or religious scruples against

‘he Geath penalty, petitioner's counsel stated: "I would like tx

have ut in the recoré an objection to the Court excusing for

j )

Cause jurors who expressed a view ayainst capital punishment.”

R. 34. Petitioner's Assigqnwents of Error No. 4 and No. 5

"4. ‘The action of the Court as set out in

Exception No.6 (R p 24), in removing a

juror for cause on the Court's own motion

because the juror expressed a view against

capital punishment.

5. The action of the Court as set out in

Exception No. 10 (R p 30), Exception No. 1)

(R p 31), Exception NO. 13 (R p 32), and

Exception No. 17 (R p 34), in rewoving a juror

for ceuse when he expressed a view against.

capital punishment."

o $8 «

The North Carolina Supreme Court rejected these claims:

"We hold that, when considered contextually,

the answers of the prospective Juror Dozier

reveal that she could not vote for a verdict

of quilts in this capital case even though the

Stute miqght have proved to her dy evidenc

, 5 . f Y

DES rie a reahonabie ao that deiendant wa:

q tty Z Cc ’ ‘ ye mr | th \? i hie ve ra

‘ = , Dae os

fails to sil mt cefendant e: ted his

. .

pi r€ tO} Cc? tle es,

} i 2

rr), — | ny 4 hr : 4 Orwror i? Cie i 4 t's

brief e ' i! ‘ 1 oj] 1 j iLro mal 1) '

. e

Yr‘ é 1 , oO j " , p " ‘Ss a qa 5

eure pit ‘ : Va ‘ ’ s to the re-

e ’ cf ‘ . : > 4a” .

gr3¢ 4 } >? ‘ 4 ‘3 ae c a I< }' «4 !

t ) ci ‘ } Yj} -

; f . , ’ r . ’ ° eT “™ { \ _

St — ’ I Ce » Oa : bse d foU, 2% (1.7 33 ADPpe

Sef d at / e

bi Le i the close ¢ hy : fs evidence, petit er’s co

}

ore } 4. 77% ’ r oO

aed or . weie ‘ “ 4 ‘ . i . iw 4

as to the cc egseion of ti defen t L}

‘ rey ‘ ; < ¢ § e pe eS i j

1-§ j Ol) co ( si ; tolc 4 two fF c

ey ’ j r yess i ty Te hy cde «ie nt ’ Eri Cet

e 4 og

} N ry Se

| . ’ * '

Re 240, Tha 10610 denied. Jj ' Pet poner’s Assignin

- >] 4 f

of Er NO. iV as rt i wf trial court } s @erzrec ims int

‘ . *

ang 4 $ c : } vol! 4 i are | ‘ ; AafHa ©eY iw\ie rA < crvcer

ory :

te P P "

4 ct) i r thie { rt &<¢ Cran 1] PIMC pel :

‘ * +

No d \ } iz 3 23 t © ae é COI

t¢ £10 ’ re on : co é et oO? :

In hls } i¢ ’ ye a ae Se ait «il eu at I ict i thar thir trial Court

had committed reversible error by “allowing into eviaence a

voluntary." Brief of Appellant at 10; see id. at 10-14, Th

North Carolina Supreme Court found that petitioner's custodi:

se 1 «

~* . os 2 atin nee © S eres

statements were voluntarily made, State v. Sirmons, N.C. +

213 S.B.2d 280, 288 (1975); App. A, infre, at 9a, and it im-

S _

pliditly rejected petitioner's claim that the confessions were

erroneously admitted hecaure they were “composite” products of

two men's statements wien it ruled the confessions admassible.

Ket ; . ' } Gj ts \ TJ

e- 4 ms aks Se Ne.

f : Suet rn ae monn

Be THE COURT § 3) GRANT CERTIORARI TO CONSID£E!

yw! ' , 7 tae AN] Cj a 4 x r 4

IE BENTENCE OF DATE FOR THE CRIME OF MURDT!

Ul, ; od yy } t Tee COP beg Li! \ if LATTES igh

} () OR ' T AM (ONT TO THE CONSTI -

TUTION OF THl U TED STATES.

ln order to avoid burvening the Court with lengthy ana

repetitio wefter, petitioner adopts the "Reasons for Grantin

Wo. 73-6875 (filed June 11, 1974), at 11-5) (attached as Ar pendix

LB, infra). On October 29, 1974, this Court granted certiorari

to consider a similar que ton in Fowler v. North Carolina, No.

7 a 10: Le oe

‘

’

, y

’

afi

» *

‘

wai

Tat

)

rf’

‘yr

’

‘

;

i |

‘

Clu

—a

’ @

theix conscientiovs or religious scruples against the death

a a ee ee

17 / [Conia]

"JUROK DOZIER: I don't understand you.

Q. You told me you did not believe in the death

penaity and in killing?

A. Yes.

ImmorSibie ior you to find the defencant guilty,

If the State etlisfiea you trom the evidence and

beyond a reasonable coubt that he is guilty--if

i : pio h Gquilht } ond a reas als coubl,

\ la it be AT ible for you to return verdict of

Gu ty, ki §23) rie ould be entenc« to dic in the

THE CO . 4 f understand.it, you s You oo

NO. weliceve capital punishment?

A. Yes, Hire

7H COURT: Even though the State’s evidence

satisfied ve cr all the evidence satisfied you

beyond 2 reasonable doubl that the defendant is

gviliy, would it he impossible for you to return

ao % ict ; Laity Kis Ling that af You did se the

aefte nt would be sentence to dic in the ca

charm>der--do vou understand i question: .

A. (No ans tC}.

THE COUNT: Well, let me phrase it anoth way.

If you should be satisfiec from the evidence beyon

a reasonablic dovbt that the defendant was guilty,

would you find him guilty in this cause?

As NO.

THE COURT ®? ow would not? And is the reason vou

would not belsic} because you would know that woul:

cz: hi to be sentenced to dic ian the das chem>er?

Do you understand the question?

. , . * . '

Ao «a ° mot definite jf don't.

THE COURT: Well, as I understood it, you saic

that even thovch all the evicencé conviuced you beyond

C Je Gowbt that the defendant was guilty, you

would not find hina guilty. Is that the way you

answered the question?

A. That is the way 1 uncerstood it.

JHE COURT: Well, is that the way you meant to

it-- you would find the defendant not guil

- )]9 ~-

Lf iCce c

‘

. ven ft

a re 5

frw iy

» Ji ’

KRMNnOV d

——

i?) N J

ef ‘

Ory ,

fie

sus

‘

’

} ;

: ‘

i Ve

| ’

. » & }:

We ;

{ at

i¢

*) ‘

est

not «

a I

€ e

‘si

¢ th

| 2994

. * « t «

On 3 ! qgaoust

‘ >

t put wore;

‘ 7 | . 7

ss 4 1s us)¢

uUNnaGerstlanda nh

t { wer, aye

> cvic Tar

vote es

guilty bo

Yes, I uncers

“" . Vrs

‘ ’ r

‘

, ‘ e

ti |

\ ’

4 ‘

* ,

> id

‘

i i

©: 11

> ‘

‘ : 4 ‘

if ;

’ ° ‘

vy j

‘ . 43

‘

. c ¢

; ? . .

, ’ ‘

‘ r ’ .¢

‘ ‘ i

l co ) th

. .

‘

(J wk ej

ery r i

. ‘ +)

fs . -

» Cf : . al

‘ ’

Court. [ al

‘ «4 ; T

[a ie | tLanc WJ

prospective juror

V y yo

Cj ‘ s{ ron

coiling to be

‘ in, ro ri

whether

. 1 uy ( t

Lar that.

ul { na

wiil j

« \ ; =

‘ i j

; s ter eV 2¢

‘ ;

‘ 7 ‘

oO! rs‘

] , |

‘ 3

cre j

; \¢

~ :

4.‘ ‘ \,

4 j

tie ‘

’

' . f ‘

i ‘ ’ ' L

‘

| me

‘

| ti . uc)

, > ‘

. Vw

‘ 7 Wo

’ We

J . y

‘+ ' f ‘

\ 4 4

w! t ti! ral?

cue j trie

¢ In

culilt

OMe

» you

77%

; ‘

(

’ ¥

\ }

A. § -

‘

“a4

C 34

‘ ‘ ‘

|. C«

ast

rP @§

¥ '4

i] ‘

{

(

woul

)

;

‘ ’ ‘

Beas

beyoi

am no'

. |

ent

uri

: ay

. ,

jUL

. .

ne wi

- ' .

i |

° ‘

\ I

Linal

‘ :?

Wiii

’

Lecr¢

Lal

S voir G@ire answers

ft)

s «

sae

‘

thas

‘

’

‘

% »

(

rr,

ray

“

‘ )

t¢

)

}

his

’

;

‘

;

}

ae)

. '@

‘

{

;

-¢

- *&

’

‘

ee)

puniashme)

ant had

1 would

4 " t op

‘ ln

’ Yor ipl

lL ji

‘ foe

}

«ve “ayi°

‘

may be equivocal and not. models of clarity, it is proper for

the trinl jucice to excuse the juror for cause when a contextual

considerat#on of the entire voir dire examination indicates

that the juror could not vote for a verdict which would result

in the imposition of the death penalty.” State v. Simmons,

_ N.C. ne 213 S-E.2d, 280, 286 (1975): App. A, infra, at

Jn. hat holding presents issues of yeneral significance which

should be determine this Court.

1) i@ornt'

"C) mini o* You wii ] efs wou l< rt J

! Le <O you to return a verdict of guiaity

of mur« vs th first dearde, regardless of what

ih . \ ‘ é ne

kk ) LJ

fie Ye . »

Oo. it ¥ d be impossible?

‘ . ‘ . e

Mi. WN: The State challeng for « Ce

5 ii Cy Ts Ae H Ww? ‘ ‘ t na Se VOU Say it

OS ee impossible fox mum to retur a verdict

of guilty in this case no matter what the =

eviae ince you know what the puna: mt

imc ; be?

JUROR KENNEDY 3 Yes.

yne COURT: Your answer to that is ‘yes'?

JUROR KFUNNEDY: Yes.

THE COURT: The Court will excuse you from the

R. 32. Petitioner objected to each of these cyclusions. R. 34.

A. The Test of Exclusion Applied by The

Court below Did Not Meet the Minimum

Standards Required by The Constitution

As Construed in Witherspoon v. Illinois,

391 U.S. 510 (1968).

391 U.S. 510 (1968), because hat decision ertablished in

@apital cases a clear and uneguivocal prohibition against

exciuding veniremen for cavee on account of their conscicntiou:

ox religious scruples against the death penalty except uncer

narro j 4 yefullyv ¢ f trex circu tances:

"a sent ( of dent cannot be carried out

rf tli miryvy thet my ed or re enere' t

Warf chose excihucian reniremen for ci ‘

S3x.mp! aren e they VOLC gene) 1 of aT erions

t taf nop bcy « eapre ‘ COonociey

tious or rel tous sCcruple againget it ;

.¥ i . , Ld

39] U.S. at 522 (footnote omitted). See aleo Marwel! v. Ris)

396 U.S. 262 (1970); Roulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478, 482 (1969

Maat - Nov Jersey, and conpenion cusses, 404 U.5. 940-946

‘ M4 , © 5 wor .

(1971); Maric vy. Peto, 434 F.2d 29, 32 (CAS 1970); Hovila ¥.

” ’ Thue ’ 19° | We 4 ‘+ Wir » ie / \

Stele, Texas Ct. Crim. App. No. 49, 396 (April 30, 1975). Ex-

clusions for cause are to be countenenced only where ven iroren

make “vinoistakebly clear (1) that they would automat ically vot

age st the imposition of capital punishment without regard to

any evidence that might be developea at the trial of the case

beiore them, or (2) that their attitude toward the death penalty

would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the

Cefencant's guilt.” Witherspoonpv. Tllinois, supra, 391 U.S.

iInMprovve

-- . .

. .

-. —“ -

- . -

—~

- ~

es =

. 7

—_

405 U.S. 946 (1971); or “of the tote) record of the voir dire

. p . + + " a 7 A * ~ ¢ 4 ?

procecaings,” State v. Adams, 76 Wash.2d 650, ‘456 P.2d 558,

"7 ‘ c ay! se 6m +4 — } wre Cw _ .

40 (1% ar Y< ad ye. cur. BUD h me. Agar Vv. Wash qaton. Se

é ne + eT deh ae Sad URE ALE RA Ae | pS Ata

’ ’ - . ‘ ‘¢ , , . Lg ae | - ay ® i i | . ">, ‘

} gE. Vs ‘ is, 40 U.S. 947 (197]), x g 457. SW.e2d 90

“- ‘ ’ . ‘ P 7r)\ } ee - + « , - 4 ’ ;

Cre. Lok e@ Ci ase fay deo ic qn ) Rf uu Tie ® 1? y , 4 V. State -_ Appli-

cation of such a test, particularly in the case of a-venir-« n

eucl Cue Mr: . 130 Sow ot note | ‘ wi Pee nore fang aby ul Chay

¢ { } ; it a: re et VO ig Toy) ‘ Uhre mcs Lcunl nuances Oo;

expire whiich 3 incdicote t 1. a juror who he consciontic

$ rUuyrie ‘ é } . Cie if th P ae Liy Mm S neverth 1¢ . hoe 2) Le i

cons tude capital vey t.

737

“a a | 4 ‘ '

: ‘ , ee | ( ¢ Us +e) of Von ‘ 4 eb OO} WwW an Llé

, . ‘ . s ; M4 .

VIO ee ¢ the ¥ { rent Me rt i L ven esd me

not Le « luce e "voic! } weneral ¢ ecetions to the dent)

P , ° . “or

penalty or expressfing} conset s or religious serupler

‘|

against its infliction.” Wither Vv. Lilinois #lsupr $9]

: %°

Ue Se at / ie

Qn RRIRTEE owe sereemeneuneste-aebsbenbeeneees

. : — : .

! ae Altho the State aid not mwo' to oC ce Venhyre ») Doz a<

the Nort Caroli lng Up we Court ‘ ectl werd that sh We

P ’

{ d at ‘ Vil» .? é (.f TLse ¢ }Ceuad ih» Os) «ff C ? toi i

capital pu tt scruples: “Alth 1 there was no fos

« mat le ! 4 all ] t!} t t

stated that he excused CL) A Oy ms t

. . ‘ : : %* ‘ -

Court,’ it is obvio from % ere y tl

rec rey {t \ Chic ju Q) We » CACUSS i =

Seru Les against canital pul sh iit ,

. 1% . . 7On . %Or

N.C ee ST oe 13 S. best 280, 2 y= BO ci 9

at b6a-J/a. fe note li, pep o*

Potitsiton

121, of the

for Writ of Certiorari

re |

The Exclusion of Veniremen with Conscientiou:

Scruples Against Capital Punishment Deprived

Pelitioner of His Sixth Amendment Right to a

Representetive Jury.

avoid subjecting th: court to redundant arcument,

the "Reasons for Granting the Writ" section of

. Florids, No. 74-6168 (filed March 11, 1975)

? ~ s r ‘

‘ “ppey a ’ } a

Thi & 9 am | ' ) Ghu ey | es nmr T( RAY

TW CONS! ihhe vi Mi TSSLO

©: 4 it y a] ( ; QO’ a aR’ Ss

RECA I'L ; 1 OF J i.“ R's

ORAL C LOWS, 4 N THIS RECAPL

1 A 1" f ’ i . {j i . ; F heyy Ut ) ‘ j

ory 1¢ ‘S RI T OF A COMPOSE

‘ jt) ! ‘ td es) yrte 4

a CU \ tt (IID NOV PesTiry

At PLT) Or ’ "Ss Tri i) i j A vi loka

Ui ( 'S APPARKUN rs 3 ED

IN THE STAT! » OF HIS CO+DI ‘ Pe

VIOLA ) PE’ jf R'S RIGHT TO BE CON:

rive WIN VHC WITIRSSES AGLINST N14,

C Wihas ! id. ‘ : vA é haba! " ) T i

a +‘ ‘7! } aa 6) wy ah Vi‘ ‘—D ee j hye . Tr) 5)

FREE FROM COMPULSO! SELY-INCRIM TION,

GU NTI BY T} PIriy A! i I AND TO

BE APPORDED DUE PROCESS OF LAW, GUARANTY

BY THE FOURTEENT AMLT ND.

rafi Womble took notes of the “material” parts,

Various stelaments which petitioner and Frank

es Silver made with regard to the murde: of Mrs. Powell, which

PASE PR A i

‘ ne } oe on , . Toe 2 1) «et ie '

Vs On li» per Tts,owucr Was qVvUCcsesOnedw

ne or December 20; ne and Silver were questioned together

{

« two men were again questioned Logethe)

if they guided law enforcement officers over

route they said they hod taken on December 13. R. 89, Y3.

Vos

’

‘

mos

‘

. if

‘ iT

‘

’

. 4

+. P

‘

| ‘

de es

‘

‘ -

wey

‘ 2a)

ot & =

} )

ive 4

4 ‘ ¢ }

c nis pre

2 ’

C.ucs ge e i

woes? touc

4 y= * ‘

£ rad ©

. os P

. ‘ .

had ¢ is

) Cea

(Oo to

. . ‘

‘4 ol

‘ ‘

‘ '

‘ i ~*

" » <34

. . ’‘ ‘ .

‘ ‘ by j

; 7 . :

‘ ' Coy)

‘ ‘ ‘

: . ad ;

f Oxi’

LMONY ,

an G20

e either sti:

° wry . ¢

i 6 r /

r+ ¢ .

\ 2 4 bevsd Lh

‘ ce

‘ ive er aae

ver Was NO. pi

vit Tare 2 ‘ al

7 y , >

Asam & . f A

‘ ‘

Lait . cite Cia

a Ft) \ CLlLOm O11

entrvs

is a “compsilat

‘ y '

j¢@ ,

. ’

yverg

‘

’ ‘ ) > :

. - s

- S = ~

y é P o ww] - :

7 - . ad 2 ,

° ‘ - << wv

> a - = , ~ ~

. L o ' . > . » &

, “4 P 4 / - n

4 . “e ¥ -

4 « 4 - a >» “ - ' ~

~ “ “~ °

~~ . “4 we

, -) - ‘ > - - ~ 2 /

- ws é J »

np , J " -

- . . ; -

*e ~« . . “« - . . - . ‘

- 5 - “~ ye >

- - al we - ~ . ~ -*

a - “4 .

— . - o . os , ~ ad ra

‘ ~ , ‘ - ~ "

°- > ws ‘

. u? ; pa

- . ‘ A : “ o2

. : 4 . :

. é : ~ . ) * ~ .

° os . be e 4

e ~ ‘

4 - » J ~ ve > ws . —

“ ; a

= - < ¥ , ° * - - ‘

~ on e , = ‘ q

-s - ’ * . -

. . . - - 4 _ - - -

= ; » ° . ane .

~’ 4 - . - o oe

tJ <4

P © - ~ « . - *

= ~ - > 7 *

; re : / ‘

° o ~e » ° -

Cd ~ *

: ‘ F ° ; :

z ~ * > - ~~ j . . *

- . j

#. 4 -

> _ e/ o »

. - . 4 ‘ - ~

e - °

“ ¢ ‘ ~ * .

. ) ‘ : he (OS -

; - r - . -

. . o

} o< ; -

- f ’ 4

1 - - . ~- par o pes pe: 4 j = yy & wih oe

’

lly,

Lea!

. 1

eVWVs

rie ?)

, :

‘

» ~ ee ©

‘

he state

S unde a

; ,

ave : q* ‘

‘ eri »»

ey | ’ ‘ { ‘

’

’ ,e«

‘

° .

tie admission of a compos

oO this cese, where tne }

petitioner himself made ;

the State license to s\

{ . we J

me ers : of ¢«

Py f C ‘

cs ; P 4

< : f yaste °

. ‘ .

. , . . °

i ’ ' ‘

® te

! . ‘ i

23ction obt ned Dy tne knrc

.? i -& ‘

or *’

. ~ ‘

,* a Le *

« -~? ‘

sli Jn } a

« 4 teat

ee235 .

‘

ty , 1

‘

% ’

‘ ;

’

ve H. 8 ta

‘ | f

}

’

‘ ‘

« \’ @

at rib,

The Court should grant review here to determine whether

the State's use of this polyphonic confession violated petitioner's

constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendments. The procedures followed by the police in this

case huve the potential for severe abuse. Tne State cannot

Ccenmstitutionally synthesize evidence against a criminal defend-

ant.

CONCLUSION

Petitioner prays that the petition for a writ of certiorari

be granted i

Respectfully sv. omitted,

~ i i

| EE

THOMAS W. HENSON )

Ezzell & Henson

23723 Sunset Avenve

Rocky Mount, North Carolina 27801

kis

JACK GREENDERG

JAMES M. NABRIT, III

PEGGY C. DAVIS

DAVID E. KENDALL

10 Columbus Circle

New York, New York 10019 |

ANTHONY G. AMSTERDAM

Stanford University Law School

Stanford, California 94305

ADAM STEIN

CHARLES L. BECTON

Chambers, Stein, Ferguson &

Becton

157 East kosemary Street :

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITLUAER

75-5262

ay ‘ 212 SOUTIT KASTELSs REPORTER, Zé SERIE?

Stepmann, through « ' vt! yu prior ft prea tee jury v nat

} : ‘ t! H Sti dev pers st, “ 74 ore eae bere

‘ af ’ f ’ ; { ‘ . ‘ ‘ ‘

; ’

1 ‘ 4 ’ "4 \" fy ‘ ' ‘ | " ‘

. P ‘ ; »* ‘

i ‘ i ’ ‘» " i iu

{ { ‘ ‘ te ' ‘.' ; | ‘ H ‘ ‘ ’

7 | ‘ ‘ fos few aia : ’ ; 1)

’ P ’ iMaerie t¢ j ’ !

j Cvs ' ;

1 af {+} of } vite

a. ' ! Lay

! t j \ ] \ j ‘

Nn « { ‘ P

‘ , , ® ‘ .

‘ : to 1 ‘ ’ }

a ; t { { d

it i? i ’

tht we committed in the 4

‘ " i ' i

‘ ‘ i, \ ,

. ; ‘ t i ; ; i

. , , is f stele

‘ '

ert j Cite ? ;

\ 5 '

i Pi eyte ; i ‘ we 4 {

, igs . r j’ \ pet bia}

‘ ' { ’ t

, ; . ; No erro

‘ ‘

WC. 429, § wi WS (1i0) Shurp, ©. d., dincont to death ser

1 amd f $ «tit i } iamd gna

' ¢ ‘

! » © » * ‘. i aut ‘ a‘ as

( > '¢

b. Dare were

’ ' P

Vriad jucpe, in evercie of his duty to

KUpecrvi ' control trinl so 3 lo

, < ' C's: ‘

arene ih ahaa insnre of trial fe al part i i!

Ve La : quty to 3 terropate gu : ,

bors ‘) a? p40 Jer thi { ‘ ‘ Giecat gf ‘ cor .

‘ } t ‘ ‘ ' 3

as P c ily ; , ‘ i Ganji bo ophe tal

nO, “Se ‘

bricgan ‘

r re ] ’

Supreime ¢ tr rik, Corel ‘

¢ ° ua

2. du CS 4° OS)

“y ‘

April V4, 1% : :

A qaeiet = 7 a) entyl web pre

' , ‘ ’

i hi ‘ ‘ h o i $ jt 3 ey j

Dafon ‘ t tot? before suant ta } j itheut unecos 0, ¢ hears sa?

‘ , “ ( ' Jola el dy minat s5"% i O18 su bid

b 6 ‘ , ‘ °

¢ . '

‘ «, of 8 i we odie ck group of t community from which 1

. P ; ,

j , Wh mat ts { beans jury pou ws Crawn, a G dant hes no

< . i ’ 4 ’.

mh iu : 2 ap, The § vesiod rigit to perraica: jurer.

prau ‘ , Ik eh, Fs bel? that trial

. ” ! < JEM bl

culo e ¢ not er me ; ty owtive + UTS dora)

juror coycerm theirs Views as to capital In exercising his duty to see that fair

} ;

purisionet or by remeving one juror be- and impartic! gury is emponek J, the trial

cause of her views concerning capital pun jude, in bis discretion, nay in proper cases

' iJiment, that mere technical vielation by excuse a prospective juror without a chal-

fuiling to require clerk to ead names of lenge by other party.

—o-.

a + ee

STATE v

’

VION N.C vA |

Crews 7IS S220 chi

4. Jury © 105

; “f a aa a

Bven though o prospective nerars vor

;

H eat ti 4 } ‘ ‘ ite be

belief as to capital punedinest may b

Le Jan! net models of clarity, nm OP

pro; for 4 tris! pudye to exes of)

wee a ‘ vn COTE Ore ate Yeon

é o” ¢) @rtie ve dire « " |

' i the dnror coubkl not vote for s

ver , t obs Mapurition of

ifs t Pf

L. Jury it

Pas ' offareat i

‘ ‘ ‘ 1 j vi ‘i ! } Poseal

tnyv 2 ‘ ’ My " rid} é ty

‘ et, vi Geowyteiet. !

vit! 1+ he v vole ped

cuilty 5 es i conssced her be

Vert r ’ Coult that defendant

was puiliy of { egree murder and her

v ’ ‘ viteihe ee

' } va ! ¢ J ‘ ; “et

ane j ‘ ‘ & ‘ i

wr i ‘ ! ‘cri ‘ fate

. Jur . ‘ ih)

Purpose ef rocuiving the elerk to read

a | af thi re os te enable ;

defer “to ¢ ; it eptiv ble pioht

t : nore teehee the jury i Srpoatichod

9. Crivsine] Lav G+ 15966), 1166.36

curred’ v trisl our Hencnd « jurors af

{ a. oO }’ ne ' aeuee ’ ur i Ver balstive af

j tm } ) . te , Baas ‘ 'F i !

Violution v nat pore pruticial w hee defend

se ee ne ay mn to the clerk's

failure to resel over the names of the jurors

until after the jury was tinponeked, any

}

: , v9:

ihe prepudice resulting from standings

on” jure eet f¢ rt of jeaned Sa Teseve by

ber subsequent examination and excuss! fos

cause. G.S. & Y Z).

fh. Criminal Lew © ¢517.2(2)

Orel wriver ef coun c! was effective

where ehalenped Confession Was micede sul,

[2a]

sequent ta 80 October, JOTI; written way

er of counsel was pot & prerequinite 1

adminibility of uncoumelod conte

: ae '

\ gents { { devtewt att ney whe

Shevits Uo Pelatc fo jury tiier t atvaede

to bins bee dele ae j 4 a ‘ cml

° ‘ ‘ ‘ ' ss

‘ hh afore s, J . ’ ‘ ! > i yury

and condu # voir dire hearing conmevin

brug: cdeatesitads yr 4 ie gisterecard

: ,

1M. Criminal lew « Ise )

Vio ; P nto evick hate {

, ° , r ‘ '

i [ i ais ALS ‘ cen vie

' . ! *

bt, ‘ uy Té orn €u {; any @

serch Sere were delet on pry? bir te

Ctrl.

Wj i con figeti fevlimony in of

fener! a Vevri@ ‘ rv sthates wt ' ’

Gos ot 4 . ’ 4 ’ ue at, ” : i ‘

to sim t) CHocees pay without sending

Bo fee fit ine of facts however, Mh » bet

ter practice te fied Un facts on whieh th

court conmelad that the confession iv ad

12. Crinain j ie . ¢ 2607.0 2

Wiere it was uncontradicted that de

fendant vas fully adviecd of his consiita

tioned siphts prior te cael tnterreyaution or

encounter with bow enforcement of freers,

thet on eoch occasion he hnowh j ive hited

gently, and veluntority waived such right:

‘ ’ " . ‘

and then pri rrerecant to wrthe dneu pritory

Statements er otherwise ged the officers im

the investijation, onto ion was properly

received in evidence. +s

14. Criminal Lew <=-40444)

General rule is thet a weapon may be

wdimitied inte evidence Oo: testimony of sim-

Harity between the proffered weapon and’

weapon uscd or possessed by defendant

where there is evidence that a weapon was

used in commision of the crime.

“~~

‘

mt "

' ’

rl ; :

is the felon

of h : oO

, ° as

SQUTE RASTERKN

ass

healed

‘« ‘ ii ‘

ty?

s * ?

4 ‘

; {

‘ ‘ ° ‘

‘.

‘

> ' t

; ° ‘ ‘

H é ti

: ‘

’ ‘

eri i

‘ . ‘ ‘

‘ tj

‘ ;

. toe

of : )

¢ «i . .

+) .! f hur

’ , ' ‘ pire?

1 pry could re

: | arr Me

} i

? ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘

‘ +} {

c ‘ tae

’ ‘ ;

‘

i qer ie: the Jarat

‘ j Vi.

of attemoied ralbery

to deprive the owner

mth * to convert

Pieeettid

(3a]

\ ‘.

femee bor

Vielite

a5. €S

Defen

‘

. ’ | |

, 4 SLES

‘ ‘ 4

tial o! emt of the er,

feni to ee a {<l

i rm pif

‘

Hy '

tin ‘

‘ ‘ ? '

' ‘

. ‘ *

;

P ‘

‘

net Yew i ft. i

‘ bee ‘

‘4

Pee

org ¢ ¢ .

‘ } *. 4

. eet § .

tile 1 tle

fal ite t * act

> 3 .

’ °

1 ’

e* ‘

a8 o Ge ii !

‘ ‘ t' pry ha

: ’ ste &

1} Di tacd

‘

ofa pms dM

. ‘ i i ;

‘ .

‘ ‘ .? é 4

‘ oo

wy e . <

’

hote 3 hi

~~ — —— '

‘ ; ' ‘ ' i

' ' satacs Gah Cale

, ' r

i” . ] ‘

! ** ‘

mu Ge

‘

; P .f

‘ c ,

i i ty $33.. re ory t

niure ny a! jeret Gey

wscrhit cul ui

* , ’

M4 y aée -

fant was tried upon a bi

i f which «

Ley Sitursone “unlawful

lonlowsiy atc Of his m:

af }

' .

‘

f ‘

t ! ;

efopo

a of

{

¢ }

cepree of

° prt

° .

‘

( fi. ’

' nti ?

‘

vue

‘ -

cath sea

’ ‘

reve’ Biut

, is,!

pie Sees

‘

" of incu t

arged that

V itt wal

chee ‘ fore

*35 SOUTH LASTEAN EVR TLR, wa

howr'

Po don’t beoheve

‘

mnt Oo.

lin 7 |

‘ bake

hl. 1 ; wt ‘ ’ i o a im oa

aver ! . ? ’ ‘ ‘ «5 j

: ch all 1 *

te \’ t* eae le ; i 38

‘ ' 5 . \

1 ; —

ve ve na we af,

owe 1 i \ Shard cefer i

was 5 \ ‘

ey ‘ ' H vi ' ' ‘

he t . ave ‘

{: ‘ : ae ‘ 1

i- ‘’ ! \.¢ t tre

furs \e ‘ ey t

aut %

ae ’ yf? }« ® eer?

eo ;

( \« tei 9 ‘ ! ! tt

the @enth 4 } is: 3

A Ve

4) } ‘ ‘ou t 1 . ry

bee aarp? ’ fur Nae r fh i 8 ne!

vad .

gmt pou bee it ‘

the « . endl ¢ v4! Qe >

toatt thet 4h Wu |

procs } ,2? i sol te .

a . we kl at ] ny ‘, 4 t

rete: a verdict « grauilcy, ! vs !

woul 4 pet fer O% 7) ti nit

chamber’

A } Gat Lnow what to soy rg | to

teolh ines trat

THE COURT: As Dund retane if, ys

soy you de not beliewe in capite? punt !

ment!

A. Yes,

THE COURT: Leen t the Sinte’

evp tence © «ten! us ‘ :! thee « vl sere

sof re ! yt tags ‘ Vue ‘ °

thal the deo! lamot bs gut would i 1

yn} " for vou toe relurn & % rlict of

pruatts bornorweate gr ov did ea Un

deve vv »' woul te Se Thkecde io a tn

ih 5 Chatuber--de You voce t may

qu Liease”

A. {No znawer)

‘

yHE COU Wel, let me yp rase it ;

another wav. Jf you st vale? ber satisfied

from the evidence beyond a fea omabsts

° *

(7:

STATE vo SIMMONS C N.C. 287

Cue as 20488 Cd eee

fier a af Leach vbhuh mterpret: !

j GS. 6&4 i ta require that all waivers of

: ‘ ' by ? ee by hi . ’ iit

t This 7 of ts arpument ome

‘ it. We thered ivrn te tt

etn n of wi dejcadunt’s evstortial

* * statements we voluntaray ¢

a i the A ‘ Vijstrict Ate

1 x ge? « es ‘ sf Va cores te relite te ti

. Jury & sinte ’ fo to him by diefend

ani, oe } 4 ht ¢ : ‘th

trie! 5 en y ty exe at

} ‘ ‘ Hy? CoV

cereing tne s ity of th aterm

On veir Siieriff \ Khe testified that

he Gale] fo brwesty hey Sime on Yo

Poceanlors i ¢ the denth o® Bir

Mery C. Pewst, The Shenilt Wet iat

ln fore ate . t ? eny mM sTee.. de 1

sti.icment’, fol « enxehange bb

| tion Sheriff ant defend ecerrred

| “, ¢ 7 ‘ te | oe bee

| giant the death of ¥ Jowen, told be

that the fiw pequered me to woen bine!

his pip bts; he ii net bawe te mehe aay)

: , .

’ ' statements, ether then wheat be had

me, his name amd bis # fore “yok

that anything that hed make could aut

, .

world be used apwinnt bias in eoert, Chat

he bad # right 4o an ettoraey if be wand

ed ow . of his own choosny, arch af he

‘ wanted one and weren't able te afiord ome

‘ ’ that one woul? be appainted him beiore

eny questions was sic} asked, or Carug:

. questioning. DT abse told bir that if he

Gecided to moke any statements or an-

gwer any quest that he had e sieht to

Quit tailing at any Une he wee the

an? Do sshed him if be anclerstow? bs

- righis and he said ie Oat De hed af be

oo understond whet } had said te him. He

sail he did. Lached bom if he wonted a

he lav yer now. He satd he did wet, Dashed

i zs him if he wasted te make some state

1 - ments. hie said he dud.”

° ~~ The Sheriff further testified? that he prom-

ised defendant nothine, that be did net

® - .

. ’

\ whe app wed “normal,” telbed froely anal

> b

, '

inj recarenl te vaderstiand of!

aque Ajore ashed

Simmons them, im suletaner, § dd the

Sheriff that on the wight of 14 Peconic

Mest 9 geet Prank & er wert to Ris

Powells he ftes poortinge Stlwen"s geste

meets aicds i’ read lie went to the

due vd beoted in wl Siiwor waittesl for

hit nen: 2a fence. ew Powell was beohiny

nt television, andl t thot firme reo whet

he deoerthed as « bi: dos tn the he . Ve

then * Silwer that beer Wests Seri greens.” rertes

the hetse withent a gun, Vhercepon

went to Mestha Jon ss heusc, Bhere Same

Byacecas | UM haere fullx att te peageterc! te pot «

gun. Silver told Misa that be knew wv hows

thes could pet a pen. They stopped

Driver's Store, where Silver purchooad fear

shotgun ‘shelts, ane i! pre feud Ore the

home of Silver's Pathan, where they obtain

ete sheteun Upon returning te the viel

ty of the f Nhenes Silver 4 "his en

. ” g r 3 he .

here. Sthoer was bendlij: tle grass as ticy

welled along the Criver ay to the Powell

hovrs, and it xecilenatiy went eff. Silver

bresehed the pan, sand Uh: shel! fiew out

Wie 7] Mr: ; oweh Ie she 3 out the v it v">

they deft sand appro hed the bere Prot a

different direction. Werth Stramons bea any

the way, Gey Pretty came te the Sront of

the beuse. He aenain leched in, sw Mee.

Powe), awl tetd Stiver hat she wie “proh-

ingen the fire” Sawer stepped ap serted shiek

her through the window. “the Sheriff stat.

od on Cresecraminz tion that Silver had: sid

“thet Ernest wae the enc doing the short-

ing.” Pie Sheriff alse seted that be taleed

with Simmons on Beridoy., 212 Deceinbes

W723, aw! Saturdey, 2° 0) combor VV73, and

on these oecasions Sruniow monte stute

ments whieh farther tmpticated hin in the

killince, Mefore talking t) Sitamens on 271

Liccemb rc and 22 December, be airatn

warned Summons of his rights in language

suletanticily the samc a. thet employed

prior to bus interregation en 20 December.

Phe only other Site *\ witmess on vor dire

wes SL Agent BF. B. Cross, whe testitiod

that at the request of Sheriff Womble be

pis nN. ¢ 2315 SOG LASbet PEMORTER, 26 SELECTS

' .

‘ { ' ¢ oe lu < ' ! ‘ ' j

’ { : t ? ' i ; ‘ie OF '

of }

i i eur ' ‘ ir

' ‘

; . ’

ff ‘ , a :

. ri . ‘ ‘

. ’ ,

; i er ‘ ‘

ei ? } ‘

' ‘

? : .

. i ‘ .

i H i

1 ‘ ; i! i

‘ | t c!

‘

f \ bol : .

;

‘ ‘ ‘ : i :

. ’

‘ !

t i’ ti i ta!

f ’ ‘ 1 ‘ ‘ sm &¢ |

t ’ ‘ ‘ — 1 - @

‘ | ‘ Ny 4 ‘

{ . } ’ ' ? ; et ~ § ‘ sorater!

‘

. : : wi ' tr ! yp

‘ ‘ts 1 ‘ . ‘ .

l i * i ; ; , :

’ ! . ‘ ‘ ‘

cf ‘ + wa ‘ ‘

° ! ' - ! ‘ ]

; wert } y 1 j | ‘

; : ‘ i. not have nm ar?

3 ! ‘ (> Ve

Praca ct ; ‘ ‘ ;

} ‘

' "4 «'

‘ ‘ |! etal ; ; ; , ;

‘ { ‘ ave ti i i it we ? ? } ‘ traat bo att

‘ ‘ 1

! evi = ¢

te eur { : te Lit Ulery Werte

| Vi I , : i ‘ ‘ ‘ evage ° ~ ‘

‘ ‘ ’ : b

. ‘ ; , ‘ > ,

v. Wil iC. G44, } : In

{ ‘ ‘ i

° this Cs tote

Ge . . | . , \ woo b. i} qv

? ¥ ¢ | ‘ te have ! ' a earl

‘ ’ vi i i eh cri ‘ wal

: _« ‘ :

% - pe { i qestTrotwoiad ! ;’ >’ 5 amiti a * »

‘ i } ; ' CV tee : v. oP i, ae (). 40%,

; ' ‘ ‘ wt > } } (i “" f rt

| ‘

‘\ ‘ pele or Ube © to North ¢ F 0, ats Clr t

i fe t ‘ \ wit f ‘ ‘ which I tele ‘ mectowm with t

‘ ‘ { ‘ fart : \ Dye ‘ © F ir ‘ im evitener, both ,

° . ‘ ‘ »? o e oz. 2

$ . cv. & ‘ i ey ’ Ci ‘ bhus, Weapon

. ‘ i ; ! j Ps Teevst iene? ; + there me evrcet

} +) As \ : : Lyvch, Levguclosegy tee stow UF they Were Useu

oy N of: SOLWH DASTREN REPORTER, ye SiH

Fn |

' ‘ oy chowht 4 i ‘ i wee 2 v

| } ! } te tes j ‘

' i }

‘ { ) i P *

‘ }

' ‘ ‘ tr, | ‘

‘ 1)

‘ ' ‘st ; o 5

* ‘ ] I

; +4 ' ' t { {

‘ ‘ ‘ ee

‘ ¢ ‘ rel ie » 5 ‘ P \

.- ‘ ’ t i e . ‘ ‘ ° ‘ e

' ' ‘ ‘

“% en of the jury, |

‘ ae

! ae | i ‘

‘ f ! ‘

( ‘ v

‘ a)

} i i. , ’ 7

; ve ! ' ’ ‘ ‘ t...¢}

} ! } .

‘ ’ ' ‘

‘ i ‘ ’ ‘ ’ ‘

- ? !

‘ ‘ 1 i : P

oa : prfentoa ‘ ! '

‘ ‘ j ‘ t ;

pocfad sure . { et you WH return ¢ werdiet

j or Oe) : j ; Mi

—

; \ ‘ ‘ / ’

. ‘ Rf ri | ! . (» wt t! ‘ i 4 : i

‘ ‘ re ' ‘ { ? ‘

‘ ‘ . ; ; : ‘

1 ; ‘ j ' pris? j

¢ 3% i ‘ wet i feo cemvarl a fer it of th ‘ ' !

\ bert | ! it ; : . errs : N.C. 470, M1 SI }

> ! ter ' i ‘ ‘ ithe wine, ot f 4 P ntizd of

! j ; ! t ‘ ve ! hoe of t! ( i ‘ yl bs thee prete

f { pet") ‘ ’ { fe \ { eormmnt felony 3 ii a | » |

' ‘ j ’ ol Vs Perehen it State v. Bender oe NAA

1 , | | ‘ ‘

’ Be 4 . }t) j ‘ ' { nit } ‘

|} | Ts P ‘ ‘ ate ‘ t +} ’

env 7) lo ahele \ »drunk th

try 1} qit : yf } tres ta ft

‘ ‘ . he could mat | fermed the fei ys Ot

ee “a Get Pisce Ue

' tent 1 red on r io constitute 4

J , 3 j a‘, f : :

eri of teary ‘ : reo! ;

“Generally, ont thon a :

‘ he covld not be puilty cit der the first

neat an ¢ fs eri It i 2 :

; deuyree si a : © ¢ cen Ob ft

Vu ’ ; 1} { ‘e

' fele " rt? 2&4, 8 i! ry tht

a cle ‘ ) reste

tint ley W ‘ edn the por;

e ' ! t t ,

tion of felony An ¢ an.3 ef t of

| ti i t \ i ,

bot! i ‘ “dl } the e

in tha « } ‘ } le om VE

, , der ¢ net hove | cotpimitied om ul

om atte t nt tothe ry, Vou we }

. vr: f { ‘ “ee ‘ liye ~ {

} \e te ' ? i t} ' ' t aa | + | ‘- . or i -_ 1 , -

1. } e)°* - ‘ ore £ Ft end ©

, , \ unby, 206 NWA. & } th beatl «

doubt that the defendant tmtended te rel Hamay, 216 edo be

Grate v. Propst, 274 N.C. G2, Jo) S.i.2d 569

‘ Mary C howell, or Vou vould at boet have . . Proj ° — J re . °

> ; ' State v. iggy, 224 NC. T22, 32 S Ad Soe

} to be satiofoed fits an attempied armed ite . ' ine be ’

oa * Nae 9996 % ° ” m Oye”. BA

poblery that UU defemdant mitcnde. te State vo helly, 2) VO, Gla, © ordeals th, 7

ses Men C tei dteecd in Os ee eee ae

property pormet { \e voul v We de wot them trot th was sufficient

, have to be satisfied beyond! a reasonable evidence i instant ease to require the trial

‘ ‘

{lla]

~—

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

cm ee ee te re ee nee | + ee

Ze yi: COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTIORARI TO

CONSIDER HWHUTIER THE IMPOSITION AND

CARRYING OUT OF THE ‘SENTENCE OF DEATH

FOR THE CRIME OF MJRDER UNDER THE LAW

OF KRORTH CAROLINA VIOLATES THE EIGHTH

OR FOURTEEN, AMINDMENT TO THE CONSTi-

SUTION OF “WhL UNITED STATES.

This cease and four contemporary cases present the question

of the constitutionality of the death penalty as that penalty

was resurrected inthe Siete of North Carolina by a four-to-thr

voice of the North Cerolina Supreme Court following Furren v.

Georgin, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). A brief review of post-Rarm yn

developments relating to the Geath penaitv in the United State:

generelly and in North Carolina particulariy sets the question

in porspective.

The neerly universal response of state courts in obedience

to Fyrmoan was to hold that death sentences could no longer be

meted ovt under the capital punishment laws which had been in

effect prior to June 29, 1972, and which the Furman decision

‘rowder v,. North Carolina, O.T. 1973, No. 73-

on v. North Carclina, O.T. 1973, No. 73-

Jarrette v. North Carolina, O.T. 1973, No. 73-

~ io

{1b}

<> Bee sem oe + 2 e-o-0mee ©+-0°*

oo,

7 ,

declered unconstit

wutionel. Sulsecuently, statutes

If See, &.c., United States v. Lee, 469 F.2d 1242 (CA po 1972) 3-

Unit c ' Vv. Wo » 4346 F.2cc 127, 138 (CA4 1973) ("Since the

¢ min Furisan v. Georgia, .-. the statute under which

ci \i2ant was convict >t irst Gecree murder, 18 U.S.C. G1ll, j;

provic the on! poesit) nierce imprisonment for life” i

at 33 }; Wreia it Sia te ve. McNeil} : 43% Pee gS {CAG 1973) 3

Hubbard v. § te, 290 Ala. 118, 274 So.2a 293 (1973) ("There is |

Mo Guestlro Pur nr hos, as of now, climinated the death }

ponaity 73 o ivte. The elimination of the Geath penzlty |

docs not destrey tt} entire statute. Whe only sentence whic

com now be i sed u 2 conviction of the crime of murder in the 3

first Gocres is ifs prisoament." 274 So.2a at 300); State ve}

r », 209 Ariz. J17, 5SOG P.2d 2458 (19735) ("En view of | }

Purean ruling] we hold that the death penalty provisions of [the ,

Ar mad lor statute) ar inconstitutional." 506 P.2d at 254);

oO" L- wv. te, 253 Ark. 574, 6&7 S.W. 24 618-(1972): vcor)

wee P Cal. 3d 369, 105 Cal. Rotr 138, 503 P.aa 5° (1 2)%

Olas Ay : » a os 23 & (Fla. 1972): S1 il van « at - i

state, 229 Ga. 731, 194 &.EB. 26 411 (1972): People ve. Encck,

52 yil. 2A 284, 267 N.E. 20 6O9 (3972) .(*The Supreme Court « '

the Unitc?d Stites has now held that a Ccfendant could not he

valialy sentenced todesth under [pro-Purman Illinois capitel

etatutes)." 287 N.E.2a at 700; Ac NV. State, Ind. °

284 WN.F.2€2 757 (1972); State v. he ol, 212 Kane 40), 513 P. '

Zé (1673) (“. . .court is of the opinion that the denth ; bey

proevisim oF our re 5 r 4 ‘ ’ s« conctitu a ie er geo = a ;

gaol Pe Lod eceticture of Kamas comsstereu dui ated t« :

enact amr: n: Ory lecislation.” 513 P.2d at 256): Caine and

BcInto v. Comronvealth, 493 §.W.2a 824 (Ky. 1975), cert. Cen ‘

414 U.S. @76; State v. Flood, 263 La. 700, 269% S0.2d 212 (1°72) i

("the Furman caso nas climanated ‘copital offenses* in Louisiana.”

2769 SO.?d at 214)? Rartholmey v. State, 267 Md. 175, 297 A.2a

696 (1972); Commonwealth v. LeBlanc, Mass. _,-.299 N.E.2@ 719 |

(1972); Capler v. State, Miss. _, 268 So. 2d 338 (1972)

(". . the harsher penalty of death may not be lawfully impored.

The rewaining part. of the statute is complete. .. .We hold thet

because of Furmen v. Coarse the de

- - - + one we ee

ty cannot be in- |

. '

. - a

Other punishment for musta: is life imprisonment." 268 So.2d at |

339-40); State v. Scott, 491 S.W.26 514% (Mo. 1973) ("Whe sole

only panismment tor first Geuree murder in thisstate is now ]

imprisonment." at 521); State v. Alvarez, No. 27 gy Dist. Ci

Luneaster Cty., Neb. Oct. 4, 1972; Walker v. State, 86 Nev.

50] P. ): § . Martincay and Nel on, 112 N.H.

293 A r) Ve Faw CriacKk, Je BWeie 2a 499

N ch. 38 Lekd. 2d 338, 94 §.C. 554

(195 Yoh: o}

(397 (“Unaer lihe Furman] hol

follow, the infliction ot the

law of Ohio is now unconstit

evant here]." 285 N.E.

kla. 1973) ("After

i+ be eo

ble, under said

utional [with possible exception:

- « this court reluctantly finds that |

death on any convicted person until such time as

130 St. 2d 106, 26 5 nN.&.20 75]

Ging, which we are reguired to

Geath penalty under the existing

2d at 755); Pate v. State, 56?

en exhaustive study of the

Cecisions, to impose

an half

feceral covernment), authorizing the use of. the punishwent of

Gear % aii nauly defined cetecoriecs of cases. The statu

Vury widely in t 2 temas and storms, and consequently vary

, / a ‘3 .

t} } eirh bcer culy enacted « Tormirg to the stané C ¢

hf m 2 : v5 ; * at °91G6): Cc Cart Vv, j Chie

49 Pa. 39, °295 As: (1972) + er, ct 1. v. State, ;

- . EN eset , f ‘ ehtce C { : / } *& i ee | Co. ¢ { be tI

a ee ’ r we yer} dexzth 3 it exists un

i} ‘ ‘ _* At Ss wW.2 902); re y e ea

~ ve (4 » Crime 2973)-€" 6 2 we find t?} imneccup

4 ! i i i bid Be mm and Pret h rend

i le under the Co ution of the United States

is: t P un ¢ t eMisling statules."” A

G46); 3 ' » 213..Va. 346,°192 S.h.2d B08 (1972

Sti ~ , 82 Wash. ? 94, -506 P, 1 153 (2973) (°7), cere

Cas! ‘ . G°o; — a ‘ ! effect of preventin

i 3 a ‘ ‘ ¢ . ~ wey i J me gew 4 ert: tise stetvies 4

‘ ~ Reis a, , rs ° . ; s* eo a f i 4.4 £2.

B7 --! Cc .o SieR Ww et utes provide that a court or jury

: ft .

Tee ¢ etcrminatio as oO whether a defendant shou!

} ‘ tonce i life - Ggerth andepencentiv of its findi: t}

cule ihiy of & capital crine; conviction of a purticul

offense do ; » therefore, rec eerily result in a dexrth ¢

tehce.. § Of. these Jews providé « single verdict proceedin

in which t) trial swese or jury nust return a cenera]l verdic

find . cle: Fe iziret ouilty of a. capita] ceorce of the ofiense

J » iA ‘ tai ° Bie s 636 ( : 74), as gt 3] a by Dai. lieB.

45 :

Net. Gen. Ct.3; N.Mex.: Stat. $4 40A-2-1,

(1974): N.C. Gen. Stat. £§ 14-17, 14 23%

Cc! . Fy 10° . ¢ — T wre f "Pens '

se de a¢@ ’ . hie ’ . (onc etlartees

f c } > tma mn . } ° , T+

é { ii amonaed by Pub. Chap. 462

os wid Ta te ‘ er Al. Tap? Baal : Y= Pee

39-3702 (25 athended hy Pub. ww. 460), Tenn.

: e 6

Others Of these statutes provide

jury must return a verdict

Cc ». Ine. Code

Chap. 507, as

MenNGeca by KV

Lus Rev. Stat. §9 14:30, 14

No. 23

eve

;

3 B

mn.

enn. Code /Amnn,

La is 3974),

Laws 1974) (1974

’

a unitery proceeding where a

acts t> jus

e, Reg.

€:il13 {

e Rev. St

Sess. 1974;

‘

om «

/ .

1974); La. Cod

~—————— =

urven and wit the Fichth and

by CON} a

Crim.-Proec.. Art. 557, 598, 817 (1974); Miss. Code .6§ 97-3-19,

O7-3-G, (1974), as emended by Miss. §.B. Ro. 2341, ‘Reg. Sess.

1074; Mont. Code 6S 94-5-102, 94-5-103, 94-5-105, 94-5-304

{as i by Mc . Hou. No. 643, Mont. Gen, Laws 1974) (1974):

Nev. Code € 200.¢ (3274); Okla, Stat., tit 11, $8 701.3,

703236 Fl. (O74); wyo. Stat. § 6-54 (197i). fe the new

liws Which provide a bifurented preeeecing to make this sey =

Getersinetion es to sentence, some elir inposition of sentence

\ . any } "1 ae sng ie ti a by the le iglature es

a. F “eo ite Or WMpusr: either a centence of death or ‘

amp? ent. Ga. Code”§ 27-2534.1 (1973), as amended b;

Ko. 7 - Ga. 1973 Sess. Law at J62-172; Utah Crim Cacie €% rae

3-206, 76-5-202, 76-5-302, FO-3--207 (1974). Others of thes<

bifurceted trie} statutes require the imposition ¢f a deuth

sentence when @ certain finding is made at the sentencing pre-

c fome identify a p icular circumstance which jw tifies

j di f 2 Geath sentence. Cal. Penal Cede §£ 190, 190.1,

190.2, 207, 239, 4509 (19745; 11. Cade $5 5-G-la, 9-2 [1074);

Tor ‘chs Cn © 19.¢ (1974): Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 37.073

(2074): others identify such circumstances but prov ide that suc)

“aggravating” circanustances may be counterbuianced dy the finding

of “miticating" circumstances in some unspecified fashion, Ariz.

Rev. Stat. 66 13-452 - 13-454 (1974; Ark. Code §§ 41-4702 y41-47

Fla. Stat. S6§ 782.01, 794.01, 792.141 (1974); Neb. Code §§ 23-401

29-2522, 29-2523, 29-2524 (1974); still others provide form:lac

for the weighting of “aggravating” against “mitigating” circu

stences to detemnine which defendants shall be sentenced to death

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-45 (1974); Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2929.03,

2929.04 (1974); Pa. Stat., tit. 18, § 4701 (1974), as amended by

Pa. HB. 1060, Act. 46, 1974 Sess.

Another croup of

pro

*? lav

ath sentence

& convict

(1974);

1 c / a

ion of a :

R.I. Code § 11-23-2

Sess. Lews.

The following States have not

ing the Geath penality Furman:

ine, M, laryla

Missouri, Kew , anaes,

Dakota, Virginia,

Vermont.

Sou th a)

Carolina,

Wisconsin,

28S

r “ime.

pursvant t

(1974

enacted lecislation

Alas}

nd,

idaho

): New

Reis

| ©

North Daketa,

Washington, West Virginia,

irteenth Amendments

in the questions they present regarding their compliance

he imposition of 3

a jury‘s or triai

Code 3 ‘>

Alabama,

Massachusetts,

Oregon,

authoriz-

Colorecou,

Michic

South

‘E:Th,

— en —— + or oe =

me ee

—a ee

———-—

bad

bw.

‘ é

at eee

+ c ¢

oes ‘

, | "VV, ‘

‘

€ i

9 4

‘ i

Csi

;

‘ ~

. .**

rey

COU?

’ ;

wm CO

= +

sO 4

_- «=

' ‘

ra one,

;

‘ ‘

, ;

aie

‘

2 ‘

; ‘.¥

. i’

a oe

201 @

tr)

C ’

yy » |

a, |

hme |

fy ’

y 6

‘

citi li

> S23

ve |

‘> P *¢

;

= °

‘ “7 ¢ ,

sit,

sLilv we

ati 4 ;

. are

wortTit2

~~ Vie ®

Taide

: a |

Pita t

that WwW i

Of {

Thy 4 -

2 ’

P :

" 3 ; ‘

WO P

. ; t

. *

‘ 7 ‘

‘ e

et sve

r :

. :

Ruy :

Cr 4 « (

te? 3

“) os

« 4 i

ed 5

Tie ‘ -

: ;

&O}!

"er T)4

ney ifs

——<<—-

exect -- are on @enth row in North Carolina, where post-lvri

7 e 7 ov4 ~7 - ? Yer LS 4 ‘ ¢ — » &% P o - 4 -

CCcvescojp. eik&e LO . < Tent vnc iy welds [ooee « CU 42 t iat etme oe Pe: ‘ ‘ "

4 : - ~~ . 3 ‘ _— fh

cinnle vote en the North Carolina Supreme Court in the cere o3

Stete v. W lel}, 282 N.C. 431, 194 S.E.2a 19 (1973). Pricr to i

3947, North Carolina law had required the fmposition of th:

death per Ly upon all convictions for the crimes ¢ j St -deq?

M 5 a 4 ~_- e

mare e Tane, Tiret as ee burglary, and arson. By enact ts «

4 i: id = 4G 4-4 . s.% al = 1L<y > a ~ 7 - 5 - » \? ,

3 < i a yy ‘ eo > Veld Od adct Gs ral AaASSerpi pro. ‘ —s ‘

” e

in t! case ©O2 Convicr1io! for any of these four ofienses,

a _ . + f 4-4 ‘sf . - - ae ee oe 4 ><

r jury m3 snt & pare cee Of CwiGe cS A2a€ iy a recoucnencation ¢c ,3 °

/ jgmprisonment. An unanimous Supreme Court of North Cearo!2:

; <s H

° '

wee - +2 oe + + ee ee ee en H

‘

197 % Sai -. 4 > ~ = - +4 “~— ; i. +. -

gait BLA ’ ’ ‘ ¥¢c 23 ere rs | —C) i ot Ot & os ao ’ 2? Ls< r s

a7 ge or . ’ ? é pat,’ f ~& ene ~¢ 9 S4 "f ; =e? . 3 . ’ nyreryYr ¢ Vers Ye"? ‘Qu

reran tvev. we Mave Touna no 1egisiatave ust tory ue NY Gsiecray

‘ e P “ !

with tne 1i<‘ / enac then. i

. i

‘

: Wie limited legislative history available for the 154° ;

Korth Caroline leaislative action reflects a clear and oc €:1

az mcor ri of i genecrai mar Loy a Lh pen it ie }s nots ‘

- < i

+ . [ 7 of Fs * . - f ¥ hs ~~ 9%

' € ‘ 4. Vv. £ G l, 290 N.C ee &tUs LOS Sei. ‘a eT 642 {cor eule.di’-j

r. : J Tore . ? Es A ‘

oD Rra¢ Or wc Ye J.) ‘ t! iv 7 General As € hy creat « }

' So. + Te ~ a : Fo == So nd om & Sane £

; Special Comnaiscsion for tie Inmprevement oO] the Administration oi j

Teo dh Ewe Ti. oe ey sn naar metegil 2 . 2 at < a {

) Justice. That Cormission reconmendec, inter ; a? |

‘! ha —- , a adieait —. T _ ec we _ '

| HY We propose thet a recommendation of mercy '

a '

; re ae 268 ° a4 7 _ owt ° Va 4

by the jury in capital cases automatically ‘

‘ ou, o« 3, MI ie — - . I

carry with it a life sq@tence. Only three |

| : : % > ‘ — : 3

other stetes now have the mandatory death '

‘ _ D die =— ~~ a. > = & . & & b. mond. & oe os Sars

i, : . penalty and we believe i105 recention ¥ ili be

+e . sme Tar Sos Puce S . . 4. = . P

j a definitely harmful. Quite frequently, juries

' 2 h

Sexe 4 ~ 0? + ~ ~ - £4 o - -

refuse to convict for rape or first degree

t -. . “> —“ — + 4 + — -

mrder, because, from all the circufstances,

}

H hev ao hmeatlace @he dafar nt = 1+ woth

} . they Co not veiieve the defendant, althouch

‘ ” -

et sid &e- - ? £ 7 mhe V2 “4

oe . guilty, should.suffer death. he result 15

— sthtuhen «& - a-00 een cae . ? > : + *

that verdicts are retvrned hardly in harmony

with evidence. Our pieposal is already in

[. effect in respect to the crimes of burglary

r= - and arson. There is much testimony that it

ti has proved beneficial in such cases. We think }

i the law can now be broadened to include ali

. . ‘

s it capital crimes."

{footnote continucd}

conclua

Norti: Ce

enre

cons t3 tt

; ¢

BPs

a4?

aia

peer

? in Waddell that, as amended in 1947 and 1949 and opera-

: ;

~ : a hee 35 : es . - . ;

pearly a quarter-century between 1949 and 1972, th i

’

. . a . r 2 ’ = po 2 ~ — : r in ’ =

rolina stututes inflictins; capital punishment for first °

- !

‘

irder, rape, first Geqree buralary and arson were un- '

}

‘

tional under Purman: Phree Justices of the court’ there- |

ld have held that the death penalties provided by North |

. al .

law on the dates of the Furman and Waddell ¢cecisions i

. - “ - - * * '

eticutsonaisy unenrorceabic then ond thenceforth until i

lenet) the enectmeat of new capital punishment legisla- ,

the Lat a a 4 sembly, Kut < na} city of Pa erers Just ¢

}

the Siete’s prison . .. . No conditions

are attached to, and no qualifications or

limitations are imposed upon, the right of

the jury to so recommend. It is an unbridl

Giscretionary right. And it is incumben

upon the court tc so instruct the jury. In

this, the defendant has a substantive. right.”

- 17 -

ie wre e

"a.

GCVERITM (Janvaryvy 1949) {published by the Inst;

University of North Carolina, Chapel hill

r¢lina), Pp. i3;3.- The Naz Caroiinz Supreme Cour

¢ . shy, wide aX 5 hy the 2¢*

in St v7. MeMitlan, 2233 N.C. 630; 65 £.E.40 212; 213

= Ul

“Phe language of this amendment stands in

bhoid relier. -Igis plain and free from

anbiguity and expresses ea eingjJe, definite

and sensible meaning, - a moaning which unée:

the settled law of this State is conclusively

presumed to be the one intended by the Leqis-

laivre.

"It is patent that the sole purpose of the

act is to give to the jury in all cases

where « verdict cf ggilty of murder in the

first degree shrill have-been reached, the

» right to recor nendethat the fa ishwe::t for

the crime shall be imprisonment for life in

ne ee ee

-——— ee ee me

an 1

‘

’

‘

;

‘

i’

‘

. i

‘

’

i on c f

“re

North

CORTmMENA

fation" provision, with the

Carolina

law invalidated

resu! hat (pros; from the January 15, 1973, date o

i te . +. cys jon) ate Yr th oF re ' In 3 aw reve? tea to Sts pre om

1S Cc « 4 (::

"(TJ he effect of the Furman decision upon

the jaw of North Carolina concerning the punish-

" . ® s 5 ~_—- - - .

ment for rapa, mrce in the first degree, arson

and burg ja) in the first degre is this: Upon

the ty lL of any daGefendant so charged, the trial!

judge macy 3 instruct the jury that it may in if

qdiégerction «add to its verdict of guzlty a recomnen

tjomn the Cs paant be sentenced to life lwprasonnent.

“lif wok Jie ) e 4 ould char Ge on the constituent

ele nts of 4 Offe e set out in the bill of in-

cictine avi instruct the jury under what carcun

. . ue 4 : . tex + . rt 4 i b-

stances a verdict of guilty or not guilty shou!

be returned. Upon the return of a verdict of guilt,

of 2) euch offense, the court must pronmsance a -

. , ’ id - # ; r 4 be ° cal

cenit oe; ‘ eathn.” fueste VV. Wad h A, Zoe Meee

oat: 3 -. % 9 986279139 }

‘ . - o/

bs : . s. 4 - ‘ ,- - - << “~. .

Under these procedures, petiticner and the other 30 person: nov

gnhabi Nortzhn Car nats Gentt w were sentenced’ to a!

aiitic a oe 8 SS wre -1b SN chat Here , ceatn rov "Cre Sencencca O asc

between the E€zte of Watdell ane the dete of the enactment of

, , r 2 es ; : ot a 95 ~- } IOUT A

a new North Carolina éeath penalty statute on April 6, 1974.

~et - 2 - ~ be - . 2 = 4 a. 7

fhe question presented here is the federal constitutionalit

of death sentences

. ad - .

waddell procedures

= 4 » oe ~* ?

aftez ? us . } IDL

tie

lives

sii af

/ i ° ™

13/ See note 2, supra.

22 SUpwre

4 pursuant to the

* __— |

ative authorization

imacdiately, that question is potent

jal ly

of the 31 condemned inmates in the Staie

— e- meee

— oa mn

20 o~w- <a

om wee ene seme enema mee ns Yee | ee 6 se eee Het ee HOE we

oo ee ee

* .

. @

‘ >

. . ‘

‘ ~

. ‘ ‘ .

rt 4 ¢ é a ~

. i

.-* zi . . |

° ~

« . J « \e

. 2 - > vi

. . +

‘ ) ”

. - . 4

= , C Late . @)

» Ty

- !

. - -

fej

‘ “.

’ ”

‘ --

‘ . a G t .

‘ ‘

> a - . mt ae ¥

; i ° ve ae —

~ ,

2 4 > wes -

a - . . ‘

- . fied “+ J3

‘

— - ‘ i

4 ~~ 4

2 ;

- 7 ~~ o- ”

, i

. v * ry 4

. . o

> i ° ' j

« . “4

~ 4 )

‘ , . ‘ _—s

~ ‘ ‘

‘ i ) a ) >

- P rf

. e ,

5 .

- < - ;

‘ d . +4

4 ‘ . : ’

- . es ed

ww --~ --* ° ° . - - -* we \

f 7

‘ j

’

das

’ , * ‘ ° .

; ‘ + e¢ wry le writ j Sa tne | "\¢ ek

< - >. f oT Syree ‘ -4 y ¢ ’% re > Rive .

} ‘ ‘ I< . tv, ° we t}; :

’ ae — ‘ '

< 4 e ’ ‘ uC ~ i) 4} i

‘ } . ‘ — ’ aie t Lot? a

‘e : § } ’ , : ’ ‘ ¢ } a |

° ’ . " P co .

' 7 ' ; e , i ¢ Cee iwvwilc 3 QT

° , .

- . 4 ‘ ’ : c “oc < ‘ e! . ? , , v- t ION ¢

. i d tee 4 Oo ’ ‘ i «’

- P . 4-% .

4 » 4 -_ <4

be & y 4 22> 4. as oe ms eai'e iat . a¢

c €y C 3 c we Cos iCGsS e« et Cee

; om >

> / y vy «€ Baiecwh De a 4 ° - - ‘ '

, ae ‘ et’ « ¢ pic ‘ 7 «“ Vue - 3 V6 Gioe itay F i‘

? f¢ 3 ore ranma

‘ S \ «ee ‘ 4 inj .

es? F : . e Ron ec MWe

e twe 2ses ianvolved pre $203 of New Jersey an

a «

4 M4 : ., = ’ . + +- e P.

Se Caroli) law whic eailowed capitaliy-charge acfendeant

4 — : ee | ; « ‘ o *} . ,

ae 4 c 3 , d ¢ . ‘ " = * €*33 Z a Te eine gif

‘2 . ’ . ‘ tee . e o a ha P .

. . 4% ;

L , 2 WwW Jerscy Or Gt Ly (3 Sout! CVEeroisnaej, ane Lh

o 4 ’ P . t - ° . . ° ; ; c

aiiré . « o 4 Aal ] ‘ « . “6 ~/ . io Paertta

2/V Je ana FO? v. Unite co af ’ ro 4 VewWe G >] 1968) .

¢ c : la; « ; es at & ap oil -_

Yne South Carolina Supreme Court in Tho: recocnizea the

incompatibility of its statutory cuilty-plea scheme with

the constitutional principle of Jeckscn, but held that the

{ ,

‘ \

Court attempted to Girtinguisn dacksen but held alternatively

that, if Jac r @ié invalidate New Jersey's non yult provision,

that provision rather than the death penalty would be renceres

Wirey ive. In both cares, then, the etate-corrt reect ton to

agecir3 c this Court invelidating a composite statutory dent }i-

4 eing procedure under which unknown numbers o% capita)

defendants 3 escaped the @cath pentlly while others hac unc

atiiut “ud ! + SG: Lene fand many sent) to theix deaths, v

to sever the escape clause, tacat it as though jt had neve:

‘ ‘s ‘ ¢ rare) : j wi? ; r We? Ys sti 4 4 la purposes, or

CO tho denied its benefits to dic. Im both cases, th

Court < Tan re thi aamr °

Wheat: «¢ } ‘ rity of the North -Cure lin & I me Cou he

P iy ool ‘ $4 t mee fem, 30 mv

tie s cl tf. During a quarter of a century hetween enact

of the legislative “recommendation” procedure in 1949 and cnact-

ment of @« new puoct-F's . death-sentencing procedure by the Noi

Caroli legislature in 1$/4, countierss mo Gied and others

guilty ef identical erimes were spared deat h pursuant to an

eybitrary srelective procedure which -- as the Korth Caroli.

Supre Court itself has eoncluded -- falls unmistakably within

the Lan of Fu m. The response of four Justices of that court

js to say essentially that, becaure the perspne §& pared shou:

not have been spared (under an uppropriate manipulation of statc

severebility sane) « the fact that they were spared is to be

Gisregqarded in determining whether the

the pre-Furren North Carolina sti

continued application

authorizing capital

eee 6 ee 9+ ee

ee ere

—— - -——_—< - .

- -

~ a ’ *.

- , s

o = a ve

- ~~” . ~s ~

. * s = “-

4 es ~ -

» ° ws :

ea ~ - _

~ od oe . -

-* S ,

— 3

o-. - . 43

P .

. -

| , ;

- -

+ Ss .

“ .

ad . e r

- . * " .

~~ 1

- .

> ’

r .- ° -

, - ~ os

= o e -

, .

° - ~~ . —

-~ a 4

-* ’ - -

‘

- ~ a .

r - a a

r , .

we.

ee eee

4 -

° :

° {

; s .

e .

™ 4 ee | —a ones Stes

function remains a vitel office of the cruel-and-unusual puns:

G/ ,

‘ Pa |

3 . . , -~ 141 = 4 + oe fe mm 4 c ve Ls

meni clause today, although it certainly is not th; c elusive

17/

P o a 4 > ~ ’ in . m . . —

focus « the eleuse. As this Court pointed cut in Keo Vv.

. - ~~ 4° . ~*¢ Se eld ance * ; aces aa — _

i 4 : ; : Cleo g oi! U. Ss. St, 37 (1 - . ) , the 'ramrers were Cc. 4

we — Sane . | € ance 4 44 ep 47

‘ “> é thi € VOI nt «6S wie PO). e nstituted b ti

uld 3 imitate the conduct of arbitrary morerci

l P d

' , ? mas ’ as ¢ " : 5 : %

yy Cor yurie on of WOXC ¢ ec usual in the Eic

; ; -- is 5 ‘ ‘ ove t-ean 7 a - ey ett, gre

; d ¢ J | Dy C sf we L Ql) an .

° - ‘ - } .~* 3 . °

: >, Vv ni 3 i ¢ Wy yo lar and « F ao aO\

‘ ; ’ > y

, e

Vs }« /

‘ > > Ce : = ati

‘ , é < ‘ P « ‘ f . . YOL »¢ hs Ci “ SLI 4% -% 4

5 ie Tas 4

; i ’ ‘ 1. a ‘ 3 3 <7 : ge are jf amt j nel 2 5 ‘

‘

$ ‘

fs ¢ | . s 7 -°* - 7 P T1aY*: S| :

“se ‘ ‘ o > 4 « _ c . ' e

rf d

hd . - ‘ . ‘ , .

5 ‘ = ? ‘

i) - ~- r - - - . é - ‘

e -~ ~~ . oot 4 “*a-

r' 4 ' $ ‘ ‘ : f mot Cl e¢ Li cis e eactora cE Fy Cs

, *

ali re i > 3 q OF Le .

7 1} t« ‘SP eee » Oa ae)

i 4 5 £ fs. eye!

7 e e e co ‘ 4 Bo u24¢ a < qa 1 * lan :

, —

'¢ fae > 2 as “ P p

t from whiter cou , our Wr rudence if

' P ‘ : —- oe

Cu v th ucsicgned to secure

) 5 -

the: sui} . agi t the arDit ry action

of the Crown & Sluace him under the pro-

ec t Th, \ > Ge t'¢ u¢

: ¢ — a 44

Pe evulvetenec te Lae é @) the i711.

. 4 *>* 1 + 4 , ‘ » Z

1, » West Virol aes uo. &. 24,

i an sor

' : Br { “> i

i foe oy va ig pag ae pene : ate , , eee <—

Ht Sec wihCe sexy, LOWalU « ,HCOT: oF Limited Punishment:

' . S an : fm 7 + +} y. . — A Crmns t oak VL

v. C , OU. S&S. C60 2}; Furman v. Georgia, 406 VU. &.

226 (3972). And see note 15, Supra.

‘ Je/ See seci ion 1(C), pp. IB-44, infra.

1957 Whis relationship is Geveloped in Brief for Petitioner,

Aikens v. California, 406 U. S&S. 813 (1922) No. 68-5027), pp. 13-

27, 29-56.

———

—

‘

Soe |. oe ew eee eee - O60 ee <2 ees oe eee oe oe

. ,

- ©;

o J

a o

. = ~

' -

- o -

. ‘ ;

;

‘

. o-

4 ; ‘

. --

‘ ‘

a ‘ i ae |

' > i i

-s =

;

uf) , .

. ~~

. 4 we “

y ;

; ‘ =

. ** °

‘

‘ . ,

~ -

s” od

)

wi .

. J

‘ oo

a *

. >

vi /

3) .

;

’ -

- ?

}

~~ .

~ 4) ¢

; ce

; \

os _

- Ne

. -

. 5)

;

» .

ve ~

n~ ~

’

~- .,

’ —

4 se}

ee °

‘

5 4 a

oa ~~

- ee = d ~

¥?

—

. ~ ,

, .

~ ™

* -

UW :

, - a

> fs

VU .

. .

- X

Pr i

‘

° ) . 7

J -

4 z

: e .

s _—

. .'s

e 2» ™

. “

- -

os ‘

od - ° —_

‘ ‘

. , *

» & ,

s ¢ r-

‘

~ ’ -

os ~~

. ~

’ °

- <

> - - ~~

‘

‘ -

- ‘

“

J 1

~ . J

“

EEE

——— - =

C #: *

- j

processes can hardly be thought constitutionally dispositive. ;

. }

‘

. - . ~ :

See Commo th v. A Juvenile, 1972 Mass. Adv. Sh. 1199, 309 i

3")/

N.E.2a 434 (1973)¢ Whet is important is theixr result: a i

lawless end capricious dispensation of lafe and death, a1 !

’

which 6eath sentences are “freakishly imposed.* Purmtn_v '

- ‘ ‘

C ‘3 o, at 330 (Mr. Justice Stewart, concurring). /

In considering whether the Waddell procedures comply wit!

Pur ox whether the North Carolina Supreme: Court hes merely /

@icp) ' the focus, lowered the Visibility, diffused th« i

Tes ¢ We ae i Yo ‘ na thie ‘ ib , inc Cais a the prea ictable cil bi : rs i

; ; : ‘ eer a P !

ness and discramination of persistii Ciscretionary processe: }

26 ; i

eos '

fox ti aca! istration of the ceath penalty, this Couxt will

_—_—<- - -- —— e-em re ,

27/ tn thi = Se Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusctts

ruled that Pur invalidated a death sentence unrier a “mandatory”

: . - Aenw mn d ; H

¢ pena lt statute, if arbitrary procecucre: ade it possible

5 3 c ndanis to escape heing subjccted to the extrem: |

punishnent. The Court held that when juvenile could be exijud- |

ieated cither as an efult for rape-nmrder (in which casc, tie ;

Geal® Sentence was “mandatory” under Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. c.265 -j;

€2) or as a juvenile (in which case no ceath seatence could be t

imoosed), «2 Geath sentence imposed, suant to the adult “mandu= |

. a - :

tory" statute could not be efiiri a. since Furnon anvalidated |* 4

‘ - - n Mess ark - 5 i

"ci etic ry imposition of the death sentence,” 300 N.E. 24

at 442 *{cmphasis in original), regardless of where in the process

this dis ection was lodged. :

;

28f he discretion which is concealed but inevitable in a |

purportedly “mandatory” death-sentencing system is likely to be |

influcaced by impermistible considerations to at least as Bee

. i

n extent as ft retion that Furman found unc ‘

reflects this poi

£ all persons received uncer

between 1950 and 1972, 63% of

Sinilarly, 8%. of persons exec

sys tem werc non-whit

*“discretionary" svstem were

BEHRE, A BRIEF HISTORY OF CAPI

Tables 2? and 3, ‘@

gsente:

those

cuted under the pre-1949 “mandatory

3; 73% of executions, under

f non-w

experience with a a eee pe

nt. Between 1916

we of dezeth

so received

hites® (Date

TAL PUNISHMENT IN

" o

cr?

foe

nd “U of

art ios Yo So

| .

were nomewnite;

were non-white.

the post+1949

compiled from

NORTH CAROLINA,

iorth Carolina Oifice of Corrections, Septenber

wn 4

r 4

‘

e ,

‘-

‘

a |

' j4

‘

(

. ;

t -

. © é

far

‘

;

‘Ne

‘ .

: PT

co4

| fr

ert

A SOW J

ee? .

- P

. ‘ ~

’

“—

al 7

“oe 4

}

¢ °

Cs) 4

5; wes

‘

‘\ ese

;

‘

°F

2 @

‘

‘”

;

‘

°¢@

~ 4

ee )

‘

° @

of first Gecree murder or not quiity of eny offense. The

quilty

rejected this contention, commenting that "if the solicitor

erred, it is an error in faver of the prisoner, cf which she

cennet justiy complain." 74 S.B. at G25. And the f jority

Ops ‘3 1} by mus WT. ~als re tt. ‘ 2064 FC. G25, 20? ae ae V2: is Visa

(1674), flatly rejected the contention that either the Eight)

or 1 Fourteenth A Gment reguired any limitation of thi

nietter disereti of the Sol: tor: “the Constil ution o

the u ue Stet Gocs not regvi a state, in the enforce ne

on its cy . z } 7 WE es SO to hed Sts } r¢ ec ine attorne «a?

with ‘ctidelines’ that he becomes a mere eutometon, pcting on

& ¢ ~ wer - pr a 4 ¢ 4 2? a | 4‘ we ons armen

Poe » gwror cl «@ cite alike,*

Without envy cuidance whetsoever, then, a Solicitor is ir

10° the decision whetl i indictnent will be sought fo:

Ss eet ~ omer -* - - °- + - 4 . }-

Llret € Sec ; ‘ joe muUurae;s, GY ream or Q2ssSavitrt to reap eo Fy

may thus “without,violating [his] trust or any statutory policy

» » « refuse to {[seel the Geat]i ptnaity no matter whi the

circumstances ef the crime.” Purman_v. Georgie, supra, at 314

(Mr. Justice White concurring). This prose cetorial discretion

dovbtliess accounts in considerable pert’ fier the striking

. 29

for exemple, that there have been only two convictions

. / . ~~ * . Bae 4 2 3 P ; -

990/ Stote v. Poole, Moore County Superior Ct., No. 73-Cr

t i

(Anavet 17, 1973), rev'd N.C. 202 S.E.2d 786 (Ap:

— , i

State v. Hencerson, hlamance Cont

No. 73-Cr-7771 (September 5, 1973), aff*c

C (March 13, 1974), petition for cert. ¢f

(No. 73- ). The petitioner in Henderson was also

convicted and sentenced to die for the crime of repe,

265 N.C. 1, 203

;

it~

-27

———_———

_—— em ee re we

wes

first de

anny } 13

*“purglzy

conclur 3

Carcit

crt sj ‘

eaural error, iliustrates the Solicitor's charging discretion

wore ¢ Mh Yea yn % ; 4 “37 Tr ,4 + % HF peys » . ae rf

- - = | P * Pee : . : ‘ < , ’ . .. ‘ ri . . Pp. Vues

. “yt fs : ‘ ? , 40°

/ ‘ . ‘ ov 3 . : , ss —, “ —

: a (sew Baz ax) cee y o £3746, two person we

-_ . . « 4 » Z ~

Shas ena convictec for murder du3 ng the ourse of an arm

257

rol owe 2 4 a <—? ae rebar , torr he ° f t — *

ef je ; ~s “a I . Vid, ; ari¢« J 3. Gs, sje ,/* 3 Pe aon es!

‘ ad po y

soihihannpasepoahiasnadibm taelenaipilanlinhinnees ot

n4 -

“or - ao 4-3 > 5 - ~i-< - ro : ‘

oY in 1955, the North Carolina Department of Justice ceased

> ° = Ana a é 4 - * . a ™

RCEMING Separate eratistics for persons convicted of First

r : > ’ = - . £2 a b — - : .

Wve ec bi yy @nG ofecon 2EOreE€ Bure) tl J. The B: tao tf pc

+7 . . - - - * ~ ‘ - : .

Os 1 aoe OF} eyes: 1,Vo! s oe at 2ao reveals’ that in 195: »

therm: were £7 convictions for Pirst Degree Borglary (with }

at oe ‘cr ‘4 ’ ot » Dive .

Ov: 1Eposition: £ Firet Degrec, Rurglary charges); in 195

there were 33 convictions for this crime, with 10 "Other Disoc

tions,” 3bid.? an 1954, there were 35 convictions and 26 "Ot

“2 ais e {+4 ~ a¢

- PY . LLLIOns ’ 4.2 3 °¢ Vol - a] L wd é 7 . ad

~7 - °C’ ratovs Ft Stteet ht et ee ea 2 - * *¥)> «7

4 PEPERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

JUSTIC!

FBI Usii

noG| nece

avs, - -

saf The

Gaecree murccr and

ON Apper

New Hano

‘gree burg

dury during the past»ycear of Weddell's imple-

State where there were nzbout forty convictions

30/

for this crime in the recent past, and where 39, 710

3Y/

jes and houscbreakines" were reported in 1972. The

on is inescapable that Solicitors have simply not re-

irst degree burglary es a crime des

te 54 .4 * 4 4 Fes, ‘ ; teh ie Ae }

anitiat farst cegree hurglary prosecutions despite

adence of this crane.

c no death penalty case, where the conviction and

were vacatec end a new trial ordered because of pro

CRIM IN THLE UNITED STATES 31972 ae 1073) at 74. The

form Crime Report statistics reflec

7 = .

r r ~

Convicts

sot cee 7 aan os Re PS

cns, anc the 2 porter : burglar ten ann nousebyee! BS 5”

Pg ae ee ae ce ke 4 B j a ‘err

sSarilv eqcuivalent to the total number of statutory Fi rst

in the State Guring 1972.

conviction of Isaac Monk, also found guilty of first

sentenced to dezth in this

1 in the North Carclina Supreme Court

Monk Ve Sta ce

ver County Superior Ct., No. 73-Cr-6476 (August 24, 1973)

reported crimes, not

are

incident,’ is pending

ee me

———0 se

——-

—— ae oe ee

» / ‘ 4 ‘

Te P

i ¢ i

‘ ‘ a i ; ? f ‘

‘ — - 4 .

: : j j

j i r .

J 4 4 ¢ .

: ¢

' ‘ ‘ —

" ‘

. - . .

‘ . ‘ ‘ ‘

. . . . . . -

’ ’ ‘ ‘

: LO

' , » , i, ‘

‘ . “Ff 4

. i | o 2

‘i i f .

P ° pistes . \ ‘

, ’ ’ , rf. ’

ss . . . s/s . a 4

¢ ,

‘ ; ‘

;

“a . ,

° ‘

‘

‘ { ‘ ;

. P |

! .* ‘

- ‘

| ’

. ‘

‘ ‘ ‘ . ;

‘ i ‘ ‘ .

: ° 4

q’? ‘

‘

‘ ’ - . ‘ -

. ad . >

‘

. .

‘

* . * e

, ~ . * ;

y ir ‘ . re . “

S ’ . ‘oe we ee . - é

. C

. - -

” -

or .

. : -

. —

“e. ¢

- ~

- ‘

. ? ad

os j .

-t >.

- | \

ad * -

— " ae

or a | ae -

~~ 7 on

é — S

wr . ~

™“

~* ’ -

‘ - wo

’ -

4 ; nw

Nes ~

. or a

“es = ’ ~

= ~

-° -

. ; -

—_ o ~~ -

. ‘

- _

ts m™

_* ‘ %

. . -

. —_ .

~ ~* .

s ~*

on~ : ~

. ~o* .

HIQ —_ -——~

iN . .

- ty °

i ~

- .

. na ‘ .

7) -

— . 4 re

_ . .

ss --

. -

. . =

- —

- + -

o .

~* all aia -

;

, )

¥ os

. «

leo

- -

> ~

‘

~ ~

‘

. -

ad .

—_,

;

. ‘

~~ ry

roe

‘

“

“| } .

a ‘

—

~ *

- . -

lal

aor = (We.

‘

5 . a “¥ . - ¢ ,

i ‘ ‘ - vo.

‘ fr

4 . .. <

. ’ ;

< ; . ‘

‘ . -

‘

—_ ‘

‘ ’

, * .

o~tdgty =

‘

fe ae Se

. ‘

| ‘

‘

, ‘

. ,

32¢

‘ /

‘ ‘

; ’

‘

. .

4+. *

heer tee

—

1 74 ‘Qlatabal 4. : -*

o ]

. 44 ~ . by 4 «

Sti iG. tthe pro

7 ~~ — — .

Cia are nc CO3; G4

. ~~ , ,

: ve ‘ 273 og a :

‘ it at i ‘ we ‘

tie , ’ < ‘ Vs} «

y a fr é*72¢ io

: . cr ; ‘

. P . }

‘ ile .

} > ce 7 y

! V « .

‘ . , .

‘ \ . ‘ are

‘ P .

‘ = ¢ rt Ve. Ger

‘ : > . ? iy

‘ d 4

o . fr ** Vs ‘

pee | . >

. ‘ .

r d ;

. i : 4

: ‘ . ¢ , 2 |

Ss c tie , a : ‘

‘ - : a °

_- o-4? Liis C'S i’?

}

; . ’ .

i ‘ ? ‘

‘ - ‘

a <

- .

i Wr} bee * ‘

SOUL oe a we

- < . e & op

4 Lsal st is 4 “

4 .

iu om 2 ed SAS os a e 3

‘ ”

} Cove4ry ré< ; ~

even when at Cnuo0oses

. , ac , —

Bee, r

« S306 aJZOop JUSL ‘

;

—

’

- Pe

are ia C

‘ / 7 : : .

* *

51/

‘powerless or despised x sinoritiex--to Gie in secret for ote:

| punished less severcly in the vest majority of cases. .

| 7 2 A

“ITloday society will inflict death upon

oniy a smal) sample ef the cligible crim-

inals. heteetion could hardly be more :

conplete without becoming absolute.” : we .

i; ie 0 v. Georgia, supra, at 300 (Sreman,

J. cor BoA peony _ :

ae i, Tht. Furwan majority rightfully looked te what the public

. | ¥

“conscience will allow the lew to do, as opposed to what 2t will =

tnexmit the law te threaten. In the words Of Mr. Justice Brennmns i

or aad A a

(“rhe objective indicator of society's view of en unusualiv severe @

‘ | 7

(ponishment ig whet seciety does with 1t.® A068 U. &. et 300 ‘fem- : ;

’ phasis «aaded}.° A punishnent which is tolerated fy pecaure it- is a

i 38

prarely jii.mosed, or because the fects and circumstances surrounds ou

| | | “4

bits impostiien and the evidence of its inutility are genes ai2y Ps

; ‘ 2

+ own, OF because it is imnosed only upon the powerless yey mew =

ners of Outeatt are is not a punishrent dsisevanene wit, } Re a,

‘temporary morality. Even in those states which have enacted new 4

| a, i

‘egpital punishment legislation since Purmen, the isporition of t -

i! eee er ‘

L5O7 (Cont'd) >a

ti " ADMIN STRAT iON OF JUSTICE, REPORT (THE. a

; i CHALLENCE OF CRIME IN A PRER SOCIETY) _ a ie

4 i ; {(1967),-p. 143. : .

ithe extent tg which this is tree appears vpon inspecting of ihe

phis. ty relink}. figares on executions watnteined by the Peder -* ag

bt RPE civil authority iu the Uni Led States betweeh 1935 and ag

"ouly 161 were exctuted during the 1966's and only 25 were exe

ad tom 1963. ho

io one has been executed in the United States

1957. UNITED £77-7xS. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF HIS

. |. NATIONAL PRISONER STATISTICS, Bulletin NO. 46, Ceopiti

i 20-1976 (August 1970). ody ‘5 a5

'S1/ avetice Douglas quoted the conclusion | ef the

, Comsission on Law Enforcement and . LSet

i“"the death sentence is €isproportionately impor

|on the poor, the Negro, and the renbers Of t

‘ \Purman, gypray at p. 249. See myers os

Justice Stewart, at p. wee = us ic

Justice Marshall pera 7 n

about capital punii nent. deed,

execution is ATE

Se)

—— Ps

ee pet

eee ee 4 ee

a me ee oS

§, Petition for Writ of

to the Supreme Court

lilman v. Plorida,

-ilead March il, 1975).

oe = oe wee oe. ae

the aceused of a ‘wry that is “truly representative of the

community,” Smith v. Texas, supra; see Carter v. Greene County

Jury Comission, 396 U.S. 320, 330 (1970) -- is violative of

petitioner's right to equal protection and due process.

Servples Against Copital Punishnent Deprived

Petitioner of his Sixth Amendyent kight to a

Renrese amt “af ive Jury. ‘

This case also presents the signed icant constitutional

question whether any death qualification of a ‘jury

is permissible in the wake of the incorporation of the Sixth

Anendmeant's ‘jury-trial gvyarantece into the Fourteenth. The -

Witherepoen decirion wes handed down only a few days after

Pancen ve Temisionn, 397 U.S. 145 (196R): Witherspoon's trial,

of course, long pre-dated Duncan; and the cases in which the

Court has since applied Witherspoon have all been pre-Duncan

i’

5 ‘

cases or cases in which no Sixth Amendment challenge ‘to the

practice of death qualification was mdc. See Boulden v. Nolnan,

394 U.S. 478 (1969); Maxwell v. Rishov, 398 U.S. 262 (1970);

and the twenty-three cascs reversed on authority of Witherspoon

in 403 U.S. at 946-948 (1971). Prior to the effective date or

Duncan (noe DeStefano v, Woods, 392 U.S. 631 (1968)), the only

————— — oer -

~s -0e-

federal constitutional rights enjoyed by a state criminal defend-

ant in connection with the selection of his trial jury were thos

vouchsafed by the Dve Process and Equal Protection Clauses of

the Fourteenth Amendinent. The Court had then recognized the

obligation of the States not to exclude racial minority groups

from the petit jury, see Smith v. Yexacs, 321 U.S. 128 (1940);

Hernandez _v. Vexes, 347 U.S. 475 (1954), but had not yet imposed

upon state criminal trials the more exacting obligations of the

with Taylor v. Lounisian

defendant to “a petit jury [crawn] from a representative cross

scetion of the community." Taylor v. Lovisiana, supra, 43 U.S.L.W

334°

*weh 3

hat

Wikiians y

b02-504 (1972) (opinion of Mr. Justice Maz shail). ’

; = ae oe eo 0 oe

—

——

_—-

ixth Amendment. Compare Hoyt_v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961), :

, 43 U.S.L.W. 4167 (U.S. Jan. 21, 1975).:

Since Duncan, however, the Court has recognized that the !

th Amendment guarantee of jury trial entitles a state criminal |

at’° 4169, In Teyler -- which marks only the latest .exemplifica~

66/ |

tion of this principle -- the Court held that a male criminal

Retwoen the dates of Duncan and MWaylor, the Court clearly ;

caid several times that the selection of petit jurors from a

eresontative eross section of the comaunity was an essential

requirement of the Sixth Amendment. In Carter v. Greene County

yy COMAAN SION, 204 U.S. 320, 330 (1970), the Court suggcstca

such a requirement was inposed vpon tie States by Duncan,

stating that the "very idea of a jury" was that of a “body

truly representative of the community'"” (quoting Smith v. Vexas,

3.5, 120, 130 (1940) and that jury lists must "'rcasonaply

reflect a cross-section of the population, '" 396 U.S. at 332 '

(guoting brown vy. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 474 (1953)). See also

Vicrida, 399 U.S. 78, 100 (1970); Apodacs v. Oredon, |

W.8. 405, 410 (1972); and_sce Peters v. Kitt, 407 U.S. 493,

=» 93 «

defendant had standing to contest the exclusion of women from

his trial jury without the necessity of demonstrating any

specific prejudice because the exclusion of a distinctive popula-

tion group “deprived him of the kind of fact finder to which he

was constitutionally entitled." Id. at 4168.

Taylor v. Louisiana, supra, 43 U.S.L.W. at 4170.

as fundamental to the jury trial guaranteed by ;

the Sixth Amendment and are convinced that the

GT/

"We accept the fair cross-section requirement

requirement has solid foundation. The purpose

of w jury is to guard ageinst exercise of

arbitrary power -- to mike available the common-

sense judgment of the community 2s a hedge against

the overwealous or wistaken prosecutor and in '

preference to the professional or perhaps over-

conditioned or biused response of a judge .«. '

This prophylactic vehicle is not provided if the

jury pool is made up of only special segments of

the populace or if large distinctive groups are

excluded from the pool. Community participation i

in the administration of the criminal law, more- :

over, is not only consistent with our democratic

heritage but is also critical to public confidence |;

in th fairness of the criminal justice system.

Restricting jury service to only special groups — j

or excluding identifiable segments playing major ;

roles in the comnunity cannot be squared with the

constitutional concept of jury trial. Trial by

jury presupposes a jury drawn from a pool broadly

representative of the community as well as impartial

in a specific case... . The broad representative !

character of the jury should be maintained, partly |

as assurance of a diffused impartiality and partly

because shuring in the administration of justice is

a phase of civic responsibility."

As the Court has progressively clarified the nature

of the "jury" guaranteed in state criminal proceedings by the

Sixth iciialiaenina the cross section requirement has become

increasingly essential and the permissibility of death qualifica~,

aoe - — --

tion has therefore become increasingly suspect. Williams ~v.

Floyida, 399 U.S. 76 (1970), held that a jury of twelve was not

an indispensable part of the Sixth Awendmont right: all the

Sixth Amen?’ment required was thatethe jury be large enough "to f

provide wa iaixr possibility for obtaining a representative

cross-section of she community .. . “ Jd. at 100. This was so

because the eritical function of the jury was to. provide u

citizen group, representative of the commurity, =“ would

serve to check possible Covermment oppression of criminal

cefendants. “{Vhe essential feature of a jury obviously lies

in the interposition between the accused and his accuser of

é ; .

{

: '

the common sense judament of a group of laymen, and in the |

;

community participation and shared responsibility that resulis

. |

frow that group's Cetermination of guilt or innocence." Ibid.

In Apodace v. Oregon, 406 U.S, 404, 410 (1.972), the Court

;

similarly ruled that the Sixth Amendient did not require convic-

tion by unanimovs verdict in State criminal cases, sinee the

jury's funct ion could be served without unanimity "as long as '

it consist P of a group of layin :epresentative of a cross

section of the community."

The principle that no identifiable group may be system-

atically excluded from jury panels is not Vimited to groups — 4

defined by race, of course. See Taylor _v. Louisiana, Supra;

—<

= o<. <2 oor

ee. SOS See = EE ee oe eae

ee eee ee

ee cree See + ee ee oe ee ee ee =

>_- --o--— =~

e-em <oee es +e Oo cee =~

eee ee = ee ee ee = | ee ee > ome eee

=_—_— ————— eS eS = ee

White v. Crook, 251 F. Supp. 401, 408-409 (M.D. Ala. 1966)

(exclusion of women); Labat_v. Kennett, 365 F.2d 698 (CAS 1966),

cert. denied, 386 U.S. 99) (1967) (exclusion of wage earners);

State _v. Schowswraw, 240 Md. 121, 213 A.2d 475 (1965) (exclusion |}

of agnostics and atheists). ,

"Whether such a group exists within a

community is a question of fact. When the '

existence of a Gistinet class is demonstrated,

and it is further shown that the laws, as written ;

or as applitd, single out thgt class for different

trettment not bas: 2 on some reasonzble classifica:

tion, the quarantees of the Constitution have

been violate."

Hevnander ve. Texas, 347 U.S. 475, 478 (1954). As the Court

reiterated in Apodaca v. Oregon, supra, 406 U.S. at 413, th

Cinth Amendrent forbids “systenstiec enelvsion of identifinbls

— mee | ee ee es eee

segments of tbe community trom jury paneis,” because ali Groups

have “the right to participate in the overall legal processcés

Ne ee

by witch criminal guilt and innocence are determined.” And the

Court plainly recognized in Witherspoon that jurors with scruples

aquinst the imposition of the death penalty form a distinctive,

68/ ce

are scleeted: 4

ee ee ee oe ee ee ee ee ee ce

68/ See alro, e-c., Bronson, On_ the Conviction, Proneness anc,

Representat jvenens of the Deut h-Qual i tic d.Jury: An binp irjcal

Study of Coloracda Veniromen, 62 U. COL. L. REV. 1 (1970);

Vidmar & Llisworth, Puplic Opinion and the Death Penalty, 26

STAN. L. REV. 1245 (1974).

——-— +

Since a venireman was excluded from petitioner's post-

Duncan trial jury on the sole ground of her conscientious scruples

against the death penalty, the issue is presented here whether

such an exclusion .may be justified under the exacting standards

« : !

of the Sixth Awendwent. Admittedly, a defendant cannot object

under the Sixth Anevdment to the exclusion for cause of venire-

men who are related to him or who have a monetary ipterest in !

% ‘

the outcome of his suit, because of the @anger that such venire- |

. . . . * . ° !

mon, af selected as jurors, would wring to the jury's delibera-

——

tions attituces that.are inconsistent with their proper duty as

———e ew eee @ Hee ee een eee

jurors to determine the trath inpartially. Under a statutory

¢ oe

sehome like Florida's,however, it is the rightful duty of the

jury to Gxupress couwmnily attitudes about punishment: “one of

the most important funetions any jury can perform [in the

adninistyetion of such a statute)-. . . . is to maintain a

link between contemporary community values and the saa system

-- a link without which the determination of punishment’ could

hardly reflect ‘the wolving standards of decency that mark the

-——_— Ft ----- oe

progress of a maturing society. Withergpoon ve. T)linois, surra,

at 520 n.15 (quoting Trop. v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1955)).

Indecd, the Florida capital punishment statute implicitly coir

t! i

oe ee ee

templates the expression of a broad range of community sentiment ,

regarding punishrent, since it provides for oa recommendation of

es H

sentence by_a “majority of the jury," Pla. Stat. §921.141(3), and

‘

allows the trial judge to overrule this "recomuendation,” jbid.

It would thus have been imposrible for Venireman Miller to have

"hung" the jury on the issve ef sentence (assuming even that she

» HI <

adamantly refused to vote in favor of the death sentence -- an

assumption not justified by the voir dire record, see pp. 61-G7,

supra); and the vote of a majority of the jury to recommend

lije imprisonment would itself not have precluded the trial

’ | 69/ ;

judge's imposition of a death sentence. The Court should

JUag }

determing theretore, whethgx in this getting a criminal defendant

35 entitled by the Sixth Awendwent to a jury panel whigh reflects

which veniremen such as Mrs. Milier cannot be excluded fo

cause Simply on account of their views.regarding capital punish-

m nt .

‘

6°/ ry, recawuendations of mercy have not forestalled the

imposition of the death sentence in at least 16 cases. Se

note lo, SUprire

- Vi -

: fair cross rection of commnity sentiment -- a panel from

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.