Johnson v. Alabama
Headline: Death-row inmate’s request for Supreme Court review denied, leaving Alabama judge’s override of a jury’s life recommendation and the death sentence unchanged while two justices dissented.
Holding: The Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving the Alabama judgment and the judge-imposed death sentence in place.
- Leaves the inmate’s death sentence in place for this case.
- Keeps Alabama judge’s power to override a jury recommendation in effect here.
- Two Justices dissented, calling the death penalty always unconstitutional.
Summary
Background
A man on Alabama’s death row asked the Supreme Court to review his case after a trial judge overrode a jury that had recommended life imprisonment and instead sentenced him to death. The petitioner asked the Court to intervene and vacate the death sentence.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case and denied the petition for review. The Court issued no majority opinion explaining the decision. Two Justices—Brennan and Marshall—wrote dissents saying they would have granted review and would vacate the death sentence because they view the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment under the Constitution.
Real world impact
Because the Court refused to review the case, the Alabama court’s result and the judge’s death sentence remain in effect for this petitioner. The denial did not settle the larger constitutional questions about the death penalty or judge overrides, since the Court did not decide the merits. The rehearing request was also denied, so the Supreme Court’s refusal stands for now.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Brennan stated he would grant review and vacate the sentence, adhering to his view that the death penalty is always cruel and unusual. Justice Marshall likewise would have granted review and emphasized that a judge’s imposing death after a jury recommended life is especially arbitrary and warrants vacating the sentence.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?