California v. Brown

1987-01-27

Headline: Death-penalty antisympathy instruction upheld, letting judges tell jurors not to be swayed by 'mere sympathy,' which may limit emotional appeals and affect defendants' chances for mercy during sentencing.

Holding: The Court held that an instruction telling jurors they must not be "swayed by mere... sympathy" during the penalty phase does not itself violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments and reversed the state high court.

Real World Impact:

Allows judges to tell jurors not to be swayed by mere sympathy during penalty phase.
Reverses state court ruling and sends case back for further proceedings under the Court's guidance.
Could reduce jurors' reliance on emotional appeals during capital sentencing.

Topics: capital punishment, jury instructions, death penalty sentencing, mitigating evidence

Summary

Background

A man convicted of forcible rape and first-degree murder of a 15-year-old (Albert Brown) presented family witnesses, a psychiatrist, and his own plea for mercy during the penalty phase. The trial judge told the jury to weigh aggravating and mitigating factors but added an instruction that they “must not be swayed by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling.” The jury sentenced Brown to death, and the California Supreme Court reversed that sentence.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether that antisympathy instruction violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by preventing jurors from considering mitigating evidence. The majority held the instruction did not, reasoning that a reasonable juror would read “mere sympathy” as excluding emotional reactions not grounded in the evidence and would still consider record aggravating and mitigating proof. The Court reversed the California decision and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Justice O’Connor concurred but emphasized that the instructions as a whole must make clear that jurors may consider any relevant mitigating evidence.

Real world impact

The ruling permits judges to give broadly worded antisympathy cautions while stressing that juries should focus on evidence. Capital defendants may be affected because emotional appeals can be curtailed; lower courts may need to review whether instructions and prosecutor remarks together adequately preserved consideration of mitigating evidence. The case was returned to the California Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan (joined by Marshall) dissented, arguing the instruction likely prevents jurors from considering sympathy-based mitigation and is therefore unconstitutional; Justice Blackmun warned the instruction may chill juror mercy.