Hardy v. Georgia

Background

A man convicted of murder in Georgia was sentenced to death after a jury found a statutory aggravating factor that the crime was “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman.” The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court denied review of that decision, leaving the state court’s ruling in place.

Reasoning

The high Court’s order simply declined to review the Georgia decision. Two Justices wrote dissents. Justice Brennan said he would grant review and vacate the sentence because he views the death penalty as always unconstitutional. Justice Marshall also would have granted review and vacated the sentence, explaining that Georgia’s statutory wording is so broad that it invites juries to impose death in many cases. Marshall relied on the Court’s prior opinion in Godfrey v. Georgia, which said a state must narrow the sentencer’s discretion with clear, objective standards that provide specific guidance and make death sentences reviewable.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined review, the Georgia judgment affirming the death sentence remains effective for now. The dissents emphasize two possible paths forward: a nationwide argument against capital punishment or a narrower challenge focused on Georgia’s sentencing rules and the need for a new jury hearing with proper instructions. The order is not a final resolution on those broader issues and could be revisited in later appeals or cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Both dissenting Justices would have vacated the death sentence; Marshall stressed that only a new sentencing hearing before a properly instructed jury can satisfy the Court’s prior mandate.