Freddie F. Davis v. State of Georgia

Background

Three men sentenced to death in Georgia asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their cases after the Georgia Supreme Court reaffirmed their death sentences on remand. Each man’s sentence rested on a jury finding that the murders were “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman,” language in Georgia law that mentions torture, depravity of mind, or aggravated battery. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously sent similar cases back to Georgia in light of its decision in Godfrey, which warned that state law must give clear, specific guidance to juries deciding death sentences.

Reasoning

The core question was whether a state court may uphold a death sentence by reviewing the record and speculating that a properly instructed jury still could have found the aggravating factor. The Supreme Court declined to take these cases and so issued no new ruling on that practice. In a dissent, Justice Marshall (joined by Justice Brennan) argued that appellate courts cannot substitute their judgment for the sentencer’s and that Godfrey requires that the sentencer’s discretion itself be narrowly guided. He said Georgia’s statutory language is so broad that it invites death sentences in nearly every murder, and that only a new sentencing hearing before a properly instructed jury can correct the problem.

Real world impact

Because the Court denied review, the Georgia Supreme Court’s reaffirmations of the death sentences remain in place for now. The dissent explains that, in its view, those sentences should have been vacated and retried before a jury given proper instructions. The denial is not a decision on the underlying constitutional questions and leaves the practical outcome unchanged while the broader legal issues remain unresolved.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall would have granted review and vacated the death sentences, contending the Georgia approach ignored this Court’s mandates and that only new jury sentencing hearings could fix the problem.