Freddie Davis v. Georgia

1982-10-04

Headline: Court declines review in two death-penalty cases, leaving state courts' resentencings that allowed new reliance on previously unproven aggravating factors in place and keeping legal uncertainty for defendants.

Holding: The Court denied review of the appeals, leaving in place state court rulings that allowed new death sentences based on aggravating circumstances not proven at the initial sentencing.

Real World Impact:

Leaves state courts able to rely on new aggravating factors at resentencing.
Creates split among states about when prosecutors get a second chance.
Keeps legal uncertainty for people facing new death sentencing.

Topics: death penalty, double jeopardy, resentencing, state court split

Summary

Background

Two people — one sentenced in Georgia and one in Florida — were convicted of capital murder and originally sentenced to death after separate sentencing hearings. In each first sentencing, the judge or jury did not find one or more statutory aggravating circumstances. Those death sentences were later vacated, and on remand new sentencing hearings were held. At the new hearings prosecutors relied in part on aggravating circumstances they had failed to prove the first time, and state supreme courts upheld the new death sentences.

Reasoning

The core question is whether the prosecution can get a second chance to prove statutory aggravating circumstances at a new sentencing. Justice Marshall’s dissent explains that this issue follows from an earlier decision, Bullington v. Missouri, which treated capital sentencing like a trial and applied Double Jeopardy protections when an aggravating circumstance was not found. Marshall argued that allowing a second effort to prove previously unproven aggravators conflicts with those protections. The full Court, however, declined to take the cases and did not resolve the question.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, no national rule was announced and disagreement among state courts remains. Some states may continue to allow resentencings that introduce aggravating circumstances not proved earlier. The denial leaves uncertainty for people facing new death sentencing and for prosecutors deciding whether to try to prove aggravators again. This decision is not a final merits ruling and the issue could return to the Court in another case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from the denial of review. Marshall said he would have granted review to decide whether double jeopardy bars reproving aggravating circumstances and reiterated his view that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all cases.