Arnold v. South Carolina; And Plath v. South Carolina

1984-08-16

Headline: Denial leaves two death-row prisoners’ challenge unresolved after a jury inspected the murder site without lawyers or a record, while a justice warns the exclusion raises serious constitutional concerns.

Holding: The Court refused to hear appeals from two men on death row challenging a jury site visit conducted without lawyers or a record, leaving the state court’s decision in place.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the state court’s death sentences in place for these defendants.
Keeps the constitutional question about lawyer exclusion unresolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Highlights risks when juries inspect crime scenes without counsel or a recorded record.

Topics: death penalty, right to counsel, jury site visits, appellate review

Summary

Background

Two men convicted of murder and sentenced to death challenged their new death sentences after a retrial. On appeal their convictions were upheld but the earlier death sentences had been reversed for prosecutorial error. At the second sentencing, the trial judge allowed the jury to visit the murder site without either side’s lawyers present and made no record of what happened during that inspection. The men say that excluding lawyers and failing to preserve a record denied them the right to effective legal help under the Constitution.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court declined to take the case and denied review, leaving the South Carolina court’s ruling in place. One Justice dissented, explaining that the state court relied on an old case where lawyers were present and a record was kept, so that precedent did not justify excluding counsel here. The dissent stressed that excluding lawyers from a crucial fact-gathering event and not keeping any record prevents meaningful appellate review and conflicts with the special safeguards the Court requires in death-penalty cases.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, the state court’s outcome stands and the two men remain subject to their death sentences while federal resolution of the constitutional issue is left unsettled. The decision is not a final ruling on the constitutional question; the issue could arise again in another case or further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall (joined by Justice Brennan) dissented, arguing the exclusion of counsel and lack of a record raised substantial Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment problems and merited review given the death sentences.