Devier v. Kemp

Background

A man convicted of rape and murder was sentenced to death after a trial in which, at sentencing, the State introduced testimony from a minor who said the defendant had raped her six months earlier. That earlier alleged rape had never been tried or proven against the defendant, and the trial judge did not tell the jury any standard of proof to use when weighing that testimony. The Supreme Court declined to take the case, and two Justices filed a dissent arguing the Court should have reviewed it.

Reasoning

The central question raised by the dissent was whether juries may consider allegations of crimes for which a defendant has not been tried or convicted when deciding a death sentence. The dissenting opinion said admitting such unproved allegations threatens the special need for reliability in death cases and pointed to conflicting rulings in state courts about this practice. The dissenting Justices argued the Court should resolve the disagreement and clarify rules about how and when such evidence can be used.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined review, the defendant’s death sentence remains in place for now and the broader question about using untried-crime allegations at capital sentencing stays unresolved. That means different states and courts may handle similar evidence differently, and lower courts and litigants will continue to face uncertainty about whether juries may hear unproven allegations during sentencing.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from the Court’s refusal to review. He said the death penalty itself is constitutionally barred in his view and emphasized that admitting unadjudicated-crime testimony raises serious reliability concerns in capital sentencing.