Buttrum v. Georgia

Background

A woman named Janice Buttrum was sentenced to death in Georgia and asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review her case. The Court denied that request, so the death sentence remains in place. At the sentencing, the prosecution’s only testimony was from a psychologist who had never examined her and relied in part on out-of-court statements.

Reasoning

The Court chose not to take up the case and therefore did not rule on the sentence or the reliability of the evidence used against her. Two Justices dissented: one argued the death penalty is always unconstitutional, and the other said that even if the death penalty can sometimes be lawful, this particular sentence should be set aside because the psychologist’s prediction about future dangerousness was based largely on hearsay and never on a personal examination.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, this decision leaves the Georgia sentence intact for now and does not settle broader questions about using psychiatric predictions or hearsay in death-penalty sentencing. The ruling is not a final resolution on the constitutionality of the death penalty or on admissibility of such testimony and could be revisited in other cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan would have granted review and set aside the sentence, maintaining his view that the death penalty is always cruel and unusual. Justice Marshall similarly would set aside the sentence because the sentencing relied on an unreliable, hearsay-based psychiatric prediction and the petitioner was 17 at the time of the offense.