Britz v. Illinois

Background

A man, DeWayne C. Britz, was convicted of murder, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, and hiding a death. At the sentencing phase his trial judge told the jury that "neither sympathy nor prejudice should influence you," and the defense objected. The jury found statutory aggravating factors and no mitigating factors and imposed the death sentence. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that the instruction was acceptable, comparing it to an instruction the U.S. Court had approved in California v. Brown.

Reasoning

The core question raised was whether a broad instruction telling jurors not to be influenced by sympathy prevents them from considering mercy or other evidence that might argue against death. Justice Marshall, dissenting, explained that the Illinois instruction forbade sympathy under any circumstances, unlike the instruction in Brown that barred only "mere" sympathy unrelated to the evidence. Marshall argued that the Illinois wording could stop jurors from weighing compassion that was rooted in the record, and thus could improperly limit consideration of mitigating evidence.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court denied the petition for review, the Illinois judgment and the death sentence remain in place. Trial courts may continue to use similar no-sympathy instructions, and defense lawyers must contend with inconsistent rulings from lower courts. The Justice’s denial leaves the conflicting lower-court decisions unresolved and the broader legal question open for future review.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall (joined by Justice Brennan) would have granted review and, on his view, vacated the sentence; he emphasized the need to resolve differing lower-court rulings about no-sympathy instructions.