Lowenfield v. Phelps

Background

A man in Louisiana was tried and convicted of multiple killings and sentenced to death on three first-degree murder counts. After the guilt verdicts, the same jury began a separate punishment phase the same day. The jury told the judge it could not reach a decision, and the judge twice asked jurors (by name on paper) whether more deliberation would help and then gave a supplemental instruction urging honest discussion. The jury returned death sentences shortly afterward, and the state courts and federal appeals court upheld the sentences.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered two questions: whether the judge’s polling of jurors and the supplemental instruction improperly coerced the jury, and whether the death sentence was barred because the single aggravating fact at sentencing duplicated an element of the crime already found at guilt. The Court held that, on these facts, the polling and instruction were not coercive enough to violate the Constitution. It also held that Louisiana’s system had already narrowed who could get the death penalty at the guilt stage, so repeating a related factual finding at sentencing did not make the sentence unconstitutional. The Court therefore affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

Real world impact

The decision leaves the defendant’s death sentences in place. It permits similar jury polling and verdict-urging instructions in comparable cases. It allows an aggravating fact that overlaps with a guilt finding to be used to support a death sentence when the state’s law narrows eligibility at the guilt stage.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the combined polling and instruction created an unacceptable risk of coercion and that duplicating a guilt element as the only aggravating factor undermines fair, individualized sentencing.