Bonin v. California

Background

William George Bonin, a death-row prisoner, asked the Supreme Court to review his California death sentence. The petition for review was denied, so the high Court declined to hear the case. The dispute includes a specific trial instruction telling jurors that if the aggravating facts outweigh the mitigating facts, they must impose death.

Reasoning

The Court’s action was simply to refuse the petition for review; the majority did not rule on the constitutional questions. Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented. He said he would have granted review and would vacate the death sentence. He also expressed concern that the jury instruction quoted above — especially when reinforced by prosecutors’ comments limiting juror discretion — may prevent the individualized and reliable sentencing the Constitution requires in capital cases.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court denied review, Bonin’s death sentence remains in effect for now and the contested jury instruction was not decided by this Court. The constitutional question about whether that instruction allows true individualized sentencing therefore remains open and may be raised in later cases. This denial is not a final judgment on those legal issues and future courts could reach a different conclusion.

Dissents or concurrances

The dissenting opinion is important here: Justice Marshall argued the death penalty is always cruel and unusual and criticized the jury instruction; Justice Brennan joined that dissent. They would have allowed review and set aside the sentence.