South v. South Carolina

Background

A man convicted in South Carolina received a jury recommendation of death and the trial judge imposed that sentence. At sentencing, the prosecutor told jurors there were many safeguards for the defendant’s benefit and even mentioned unspecified safeguards he said he could not describe to them. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the trial judge’s handling of that argument. Seven days later, this Court decided Caldwell v. Mississippi, which condemned certain prosecutor comments that might lead jurors to think others, not the jury, would decide the defendant’s fate.

Reasoning

The Court today denied the defendant’s request for review and left the state-court judgment in place. The opinion denying review does not resolve the constitutional question on the merits. A dissenting Justice argued that, under the Caldwell decision, the prosecutor’s vague assurances could have caused jurors to shift responsibility for deciding death to others, and therefore the sentence should be reconsidered. Another Justice said he would have granted review and sent the case back for further consideration in light of Caldwell.

Real world impact

As a result of the denial, the defendant’s death sentence remains in effect for now. The Court’s action is not a final ruling on the underlying constitutional issue, so the question whether such prosecutor remarks are permissible could be raised again in other cases or reconsidered by lower courts. The dissent highlights ongoing concern about how prosecutor comments can affect jurors’ sense of responsibility in capital sentencing.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented, urging reversal under Caldwell; Justice Blackmun would have granted review and remanded for reconsideration.