Waters v. Kemp, Warden
Headline: Court denies review of a Georgia death sentence, leaving the sentence in place; two Justices would send the case back for reconsideration under Caldwell, while one Justice would vacate the sentence outright.
Holding:
- Leaves the Georgia death sentence in place pending any future review.
- Shows a split among Justices about death-penalty procedures and constitutionality.
- Two Justices would send the case back for reconsideration under Caldwell.
Summary
Background
Eurus Kelly Waters asked the Supreme Court to review a Georgia judgment that left him under a death sentence. Waters filed a petition asking the Justices to take his case, but on February 24, 1986 the Court declined to hear it, leaving the Georgia judgment intact.
Reasoning
The Court’s action was simply to deny the petition for review; there is no majority opinion explaining that denial in the text. Two Justices—Marshall and Blackmun—said they would have granted review, vacated the judgment, and sent the case back to Georgia for further consideration specifically in light of the Court’s recent decision in Caldwell v. Mississippi (1985). Justice Brennan dissented from the denial on a different ground: he stated that the death penalty is always cruel and unusual punishment and said he would grant review and vacate the sentence.
Real world impact
Because the Supreme Court refused to take the case, the Georgia judgment and the death sentence remain in effect for now. The denial is not a ruling on the merits of the constitutional claims; it leaves open the possibility that the case could be revisited later, especially since two Justices explicitly urged reconsideration under Caldwell. The practical result for Waters is that his sentence stands unless a lower court or the Justices later act.
Dissents or concurrances
The separate positions are important: two Justices favored remand for further review under Caldwell, while Justice Brennan would have vacated the death sentence on the ground that capital punishment is always unconstitutional.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?