Romano v. Oklahoma

Background

A man was tried separately for two murders. In the first trial one jury convicted him and sentenced him to death. At his second trial for a different murder, the prosecutor put before the sentencing jury the official judgment from the first case showing that he had already been sentenced to death. Defense counsel objected and offered to stipulate only to the conviction; the judge admitted the full judgment anyway.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether showing the prior death sentence made the second jury feel less responsible for deciding life or death. The majority said the record shown to the jury was accurate when admitted and the trial judge repeatedly told jurors they were the decisionmakers and limited what they could consider. The Court applied ordinary fairness review and concluded the admission did not so infect the sentencing that it violated the Constitution. Justice O’Connor agreed separately that accuracy matters; she said inaccurate or misleading evidence would be unconstitutional. Several Justices dissented, arguing the evidence risked minimizing jurors’ sense of responsibility and would warrant a new sentencing.

Real world impact

The decision means prosecutors may introduce an accurate prior judgment showing a defendant’s earlier death sentence without automatically triggering federal constitutional reversal. Courts will look closely at whether the evidence was false or misleading and whether judges gave clear instructions. Because some Justices dissented, debates about exposure of juries to other juries’ death sentences may continue in future cases.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Ginsburg and Blackmun dissented, arguing the prior death judgment could improperly lessen jurors’ sense of responsibility; Justice O’Connor concurred, stressing that only inaccurate or misleading information violates the rule.