Moore v. Blackburn, Warden

Background

A man sentenced to death challenged statements his prosecutor made during the sentencing phase, where the prosecutor said the death penalty was the only available punishment and described review "through every court in this land," suggesting appellate courts would handle the ultimate responsibility. He raised the issue on direct appeal, and the Louisiana Supreme Court called the argument “close to reversible error” but rejected relief. The federal appeals court also denied relief and later treated a second habeas application as barred.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court declined to review the petition, leaving the lower courts’ rulings in place. Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented, saying the prosecutor’s statement was essentially identical to the misleading argument condemned in the Court’s recent Caldwell decision. Marshall argued that under Caldwell the error requires reconsideration unless shown harmless and that Caldwell is an intervening change in the law permitting reexamination under the "ends of justice" approach from Sanders.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the defendant’s sentence remains intact for now and the lower-court judgments stand. The dissent warns that prosecutors’ statements implying that appellate courts, not juries, decide final responsibility can undermine jurors’ duty and that some defendants with similar claims could deserve new federal hearings. This is a denial of review, not a final decision on the merits, and future courts could reapply Caldwell differently.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall would have granted review, vacated the district court judgment, and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Caldwell.