Busby v. Louisiana

Background

A man convicted of first-degree murder in Louisiana was sentenced to death after a jury trial. At sentencing his lawyer urged jurors to understand that a death verdict would be carried out. The prosecutor told the jury their decisions would be recommendations for the judge to impose the death penalty. The jury returned a death sentence and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed. After the defendant filed for this Court to review the case, the Supreme Court decided Caldwell v. Mississippi, a case holding it is wrong to rest a death sentence on a sentencer who believes responsibility rests elsewhere.

Reasoning

The central question raised by the dissent was whether the prosecutor’s statements misstated Louisiana law and improperly minimized the jury’s role under Caldwell. Justice Marshall explained that Louisiana law makes a jury’s decision for death binding on the court (La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 905.8), so the prosecutor’s claim that the judge would impose the sentence was factually inaccurate and likely reduced the jury’s sense of responsibility. The dissent concluded these remarks violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as interpreted in Caldwell and that the death sentence could not stand.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court denied the defendant’s request for review, the Louisiana death sentence remains in place and the defendant faces the sentence’s immediate consequences. The dissent emphasized that the Court’s usual practice is to grant relief and remand when an intervening decision may affect a sentence, and argued that declining to do so departs from routine court practice. The denial is not a final judgment on the constitutional issue and could be revisited in the future.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justices Brennan and Blackmun, dissented, arguing the Court should have vacated the sentence and remanded for reconsideration under Caldwell because the prosecutor’s statements were improper and factually incorrect.