Barber v. Tennessee
Headline: A death-row inmate’s challenge to a vague 'wicked or morally corrupt' jury instruction was left unreviewed as the Court denied review, while noting such broad aggravating instructions appear impermissible and could affect sentences.
Holding: The Court denied review of a death-row inmate's challenge but made clear that denying review is not a ruling on the case's substance and that a jury instruction calling murderers "wicked or morally corrupt" appears impermissible.
- Denial of review does not resolve whether the death sentence is constitutional.
- Warns courts against vague 'aggravating' instructions in death penalty cases.
Summary
Background
A person sentenced to death challenged his sentence, arguing one reason jurors could impose death was defined too broadly. The trial judge told jurors an "aggravating circumstance"—a reason a jury can choose the death penalty—could be found if the killer’s state of mind was "wicked or morally corrupt." The petitioner argued that this description applies to every murder. The State sought review from the Court, and the Court declined to hear the case.
Reasoning
Justice Stevens wrote respecting the Court’s denial and emphasized that denying review is not a ruling on the case’s substance. He explained there were valid reasons the Court refused review in this instance, but he also pointed out that the trial instruction plainly looks impermissible. Stevens relied on the Court’s earlier decisions in similar cases, which struck down comparably broad language allowing juries to find aggravating circumstances without clear limiting standards.
Real world impact
Because the Court declined to review, the denial does not settle whether the death sentence is lawful. The opinion signals that jury instructions that equate an offender’s mindset with being "wicked or morally corrupt" may violate existing limits. Trial judges and prosecutors should take care when drafting aggravating instructions, and future appeals could revisit this question on the case’s merits.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?