California v. Ramos
A single justice, acting for the full Court, granted California's request to pause a new death-penalty sentencing hearing for a man whose death sentence had been thrown out by the state supreme court.
The pause keeps the resentencing on hold while the Supreme Court reviews the underlying legal question about how juries are told about parole and commutation, and the man himself did not object to the delay.
“I have therefore decided that petitioner’s reapplication for a stay pending disposition of the case by this Court should be granted.”
Rehnquist explains his decision to pause the resentencing hearing pending Supreme Court review.
How it got here: California's high court vacated the death sentence and ordered new sentencing; California sought Supreme Court review and a stay of the resentencing pending that review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Marcelino Ramos was convicted of capital murder in California and sentenced to death after the trial judge told jurors that a life sentence without parole could later be commuted by the Governor to a sentence allowing parole. The California Supreme Court threw out the death sentence, ruling that this instruction violated the defendant's constitutional rights, and ordered a new sentencing hearing.
The question before the Court
Should California be allowed to pause a death-row inmate's new sentencing hearing while the Supreme Court reviews his case?
Why it matters
The order keeps a scheduled resentencing hearing from going forward until the Supreme Court can decide the underlying legal question. It shows how a single justice can pause state court proceedings nationwide while a case is pending, avoiding a resentencing that might have to be redone depending on the outcome.
What changes now
The new sentencing proceeding in California will not go forward while the Supreme Court reviews the case, which it has already agreed to hear. The Court will consider whether telling capital sentencing juries about the Governor's commutation power is constitutional. This is a temporary emergency order, not a final ruling on the merits, and the case will proceed through full briefing and argument.
What this does not decide
This order only pauses the resentencing hearing; it does not decide whether the jury instruction about commutation was constitutional or resolve any other issue in the case. Those questions remain for the full Court to decide after briefing and argument.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Rehnquist (author).
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Circuit Justice noted that the full Court had already denied an earlier stay request back in March 1982, before the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case.
- Since then, the Supreme Court had agreed to review the case by granting certiorari (agreeing to hear it), changing the posture of the dispute.
- With a new sentencing hearing set to begin on November 8, 1982, and with the man himself not objecting to a delay, the Circuit Justice found no reason to let the resentencing proceed before the Supreme Court could resolve the underlying question.
- The Circuit Justice therefore granted California's renewed request to pause the resentencing hearing until the Supreme Court decides the case.