Pulley v. Harris

Background

A man convicted in California for kidnapping, robbery, and the murders of two teenage boys was sentenced to death. He argued the state court must compare his sentence with sentences in similar cases before affirming it. The California Supreme Court rejected that claim. A federal appeals court later ordered proportionality review and granted habeas relief, and the State asked the Supreme Court to decide whether the Constitution requires such cross‑case comparisons.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the Eighth Amendment (which bans cruel and unusual punishments) forces state appellate courts to make cross‑case comparisons before upholding a death sentence. The Court examined prior decisions and explained that earlier cases upheld different state sentencing systems but did not establish a blanket constitutional rule requiring comparative proportionality review. The Court described California’s procedures—bifurcated trial phases, a list of “special circumstances,” judge review of the jury’s findings, and automatic appeal—and concluded those safeguards make mandatory cross‑case comparison unnecessary under the Constitution. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and denied habeas relief based on the proportionality claim.

Real world impact

State courts remain free to provide comparative proportionality review if their laws or practices require it. The decision limits the availability of federal habeas relief based solely on a claimed absence of cross‑case comparisons. The ruling left open other claims, including evidentiary and discrimination issues, which the lower courts may still consider on remand.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens agreed in the judgment but emphasized that some meaningful appellate review is essential. Justice Brennan (joined by Justice Marshall) dissented, arguing comparative proportionality review helps prevent arbitrary and racially biased death sentences and should be constitutionally required.