Lipham v. Georgia

Background

A man convicted in Georgia of murder, rape, armed robbery, and burglary was sentenced to death for the murder. At the sentencing phase the local prosecutor told jurors that seeking the death penalty was his decision and urged them not to feel the responsibility for deciding whether to impose death. The Georgia courts affirmed the conviction and death sentence, and the man asked the Court to review the case.

Reasoning

The core question raised by the dissent was whether the prosecutor’s statements improperly shifted the jury’s sense of responsibility and violated this Court’s earlier decision in Caldwell v. Mississippi, which forbids arguments that lead jurors to believe final responsibility rests elsewhere. Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, said the prosecutor’s opening and closing arguments—telling jurors the decision to seek death had already been made and calling a life sentence a joke—dissipated the jurors’ sense of responsibility. Marshall concluded the trial judge committed plain error and would have granted review and vacated the death sentence.

Real world impact

The Court denied the petition for review, leaving the Georgia conviction and death sentence in place. That outcome means the prosecutor’s sentencing arguments were not reversed by this Court in this decision. The dissenting Justices argued that such prosecutorial remarks should require vacating a death sentence under Caldwell.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented, reiterating his broader view that the death penalty is always unconstitutional, and separately argued that, under Caldwell, the prosecutor’s statements required vacating the sentence. Marshall also said the trial judge committed plain error by allowing the remarks.