Schiro v. Indiana

Background

An Indiana man convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death in 1981 challenged the judge’s decision to impose death after a jury twice indicated it did not find the killing intentional and unanimously refused to recommend death. The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the sentence four times and upheld the judge’s actions under state law. The prisoner also filed a federal habeas application in 1986 that was sent back to state court because state remedies were not exhausted.

Reasoning

The core question raised is whether a judge’s post-trial finding of intent — after a jury declined to find intentional murder and refused to recommend death — violates the Double Jeopardy Clause or otherwise forecloses later federal review. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review without deciding the merits and emphasized that such a denial expresses no view on the underlying constitutional issues. Justice Stevens explained that many capital claims are better addressed first in federal habeas proceedings and noted the federal district court had not yet reviewed the prisoner’s federal claims.

Real world impact

The denial leaves the Indiana court rulings in place for now but does not resolve the constitutional questions, which remain for federal habeas review (a federal court review of constitutional claims). The opinion highlights how a judge’s power to override a jury can produce long, costly litigation and substantial delay in resolving death sentences.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented from the denial, stating they would have granted review and vacated the sentence because they view the death penalty as always unconstitutional.