Nicks v. Alabama

Background

A man convicted and sentenced to death in Alabama asked the Supreme Court to review his case. During the sentencing phase, the prosecutor told the jury their decision would be only “advisory” and that the trial judge would make the ultimate choice between life without parole or death. The Supreme Court denied the request to review the case.

Reasoning

The central issue raised in the dissent was whether the prosecutor’s comments improperly reduced the jury’s sense of responsibility and therefore infected the death sentence. Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, argued that those statements plainly violated the Court’s earlier decision in Caldwell v. Mississippi, which forbids leading a jury to believe that final responsibility for a death sentence rests elsewhere. Marshall would have granted review and vacated the sentence on that basis. The majority did not take the case, so the state court’s judgment stands.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused review, the defendant’s death sentence remains in effect. The dissent warns that prosecutors telling juries their verdicts are merely advisory can undermine the reliability of capital sentencing and, if relied on by a majority, would require vacating such sentences. This decision is a denial of review, not a full ruling on the merits, so the broader legal question remains unsettled at the national level.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall (joined by Justice Brennan) dissented, explaining in plain terms that the prosecutor’s advisory-comment was a ‘‘flagrant violation’’ of Caldwell and would have compelled reversal of the death sentence.