Romine v. Georgia

Background

Larry Romine, convicted of capital murder, was retried for sentencing after an earlier death sentence was reversed and the case remanded by the Georgia Supreme Court. At the retrial the jury deliberated almost seven hours, took an overnight break, then sent a note saying they were unable to reach a unanimous decision and “certain we will not ever be able to reach one.” The trial judge asked for a numerical breakdown, learned the split was 11 to 1, sent them back, and later gave an Allen charge; two hours after that the jury returned a unanimous death verdict.

Reasoning

The central question discussed by the dissenting Justice was whether the judge’s polling and the later Allen charge unfairly pressured the lone juror to abandon a dissenting view. The Justice compared this case to the Court’s recent decision in Lowenfield, noting several differences here: the polling looked like a question about the verdict itself, the jury’s deadlock was emphatic, the judge gave new instructions on his own, and the judge knew of the 11–1 split before giving the Allen charge. The Justice argued these facts made coercion more likely and urged that Georgia’s courts reconsider the sentence under Lowenfield’s warning to evaluate such charges in context.

Real world impact

The immediate court action at the top of the opinion shows the petition for rehearing was denied, so the prior result stands for now. The dissent calls for the Georgia Supreme Court to reexamine the sentencing decision because a coerced vote could change a death sentence to a life sentence under Georgia law when juries are deadlocked.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall dissented, saying he would vacate the death sentence and order reconsideration because, in his view, the combination of polling and a supplemental Allen charge here was especially coercive and unacceptable.