U.S. Supreme Court Requires Juries to Review Both How Evidence Argues for the Death Penalty and Against the Death Penalty
The United States Supreme Court recently issued three opinions, all requiring Texas judges, in sentencing hearings where the death penalty is possible, to instruct juries to look at evidence as a "two-edged sword."
The Court has previously held, in Apprendi v. New Jersey and Ring v. Arizona, that judges cannot decide, by themselves, to sentence a defendant to death. In other words, only a jury can decided the truth of any fact that could lead to the death penalty. Once the jury has decided that these "aggravating circumstances" are true, only then can the judge impose the death penalty on a defendant.
The Supreme Court also ruled, in the case of Penry v. Lynaugh, that juries must consider both aggravating circumstances that point toward a penalty of death and mitigating circumstances that point away from death. If the jury finds that the mitigating circumstances trump the aggravating circumstances, the defendant would likely be sentenced to life in prison.
In Brewer v. Texas, after the defendant was sentenced to death, he argued that the jury had been instructed to ignore the mitigating nature of his childhood. During the sentencing hearing, Brewer's attorney argued that he should be spared death because he suffered from deep depression, was abused by his father, had seen his father abuse his mother, and was a drug abuser.
The judge in the Brewer case, refused to instruct the jury to look at Brewer's childhood as a "two-edge sword." Instead, the judge only asked the jury if Brewer was likely to commit further criminal acts of violence, an aggravating circumstance. The prosecutor told the jury Brewer's past only pointed toward his "future dangerousness," saying "you can take a puppy, and you can beat that puppy and you can make him mean, but if that dog bites, he is going to bite the rest of his life, for whatever reason."
The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach. The Court said that juries must be instructed to take such facts as Brewer's past as a "two-edge sword." The abuse, depression, and drug use can lead in both directions. Such facts can point toward the defendant being more likely to commit such crimes again (aggravating) and also point toward sparing him from the death penalty. An abusive childhood, drug use, and depression could lead a jury to believe the defendant was less morally responsible for the crime he committed (mitigating).
Brewer may have been spared the death penalty if the jury had been instructed to see his childhood as a two-edge sword.
