DeGarmo v. Texas

Background

A man named Roger DeGarmo was convicted of kidnapping and murdering a young woman and was sentenced to death by lethal injection. His alleged accomplice, Helen Mejia, later received a very lenient plea deal — ten years’ deferred probation — despite participating in the same offense. DeGarmo challenged aspects of the prosecution’s conduct on appeal, and the State courts rejected his claims; the Supreme Court then declined to review the case.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s action here was simply to deny the petition for review, so the Texas courts’ decision stands. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, wrote a dissent arguing that prosecutorial choices produced a shocking disparity: the State sought death for DeGarmo while offering minimal punishment to his accomplice. Brennan said this kind of prosecutorial discretion can make the death penalty arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional in practice.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to take the case, DeGarmo’s death sentence remains in effect for now. The dissent emphasized that such plea deals and prosecutorial freedom can decide who lives and who dies, undermining the fairness of capital punishment. The opinion also notes DeGarmo may try to raise related claims later in federal habeas proceedings, so the legal fight could continue in lower courts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan’s dissent stresses two points: he believes the death penalty is unconstitutional in all circumstances, and even if it were allowed, the prosecutor’s unbridled discretion here fatally undermines any protections against arbitrary death sentences. He would have granted review and vacated the death sentence.