Buttrum v. Black, Warden

Background

A woman was convicted of murder in Georgia and sentenced to death. Her conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and earlier review by this Court was denied. She then sought review after a state court denied her request for relief. At her sentencing, the prosecutor used language drawn from an 1873 Georgia decision that suggested jurors should not consider mercy when deciding a death sentence.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the prosecutor’s closing statements — telling jurors mercy had no place in sentencing — raised a constitutional problem in a capital case. The Supreme Court declined to take the case and denied review, leaving the Georgia court’s decision and the death sentence in place. Two Justices dissented: one would have granted review and vacated the sentence because the death penalty is always unconstitutional, and another emphasized that the prosecutor’s comments raised serious constitutional questions and preferred delaying action until a related case was decided.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to review, the defendant’s death sentence remains effective for now. The ruling leaves unresolved whether prosecutors may broadly tell juries mercy is irrelevant in capital sentencing. The Court has already agreed to hear a related case (California v. Brown), so a national answer to this issue may come later.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented from the denial. Both argued strongly against the death penalty or for further review; Marshall also urged waiting for the related case to address prosecutorial comments.