Barber v. Tennessee

Background

A person sentenced to death challenged the way the trial judge defined a reason that could lead to the death penalty. At trial the judge instructed jurors that they could find an aggravating circumstance warranting death if they concluded the murderer’s state of mind was "wicked or morally corrupt." The case reached the high court by a request for review, and the Court declined to take the case.

Reasoning

Justice Stevens wrote a short opinion respecting the denial to emphasize an important legal point: a refusal to review a case is not the same as a decision on the merits. He noted there can be valid reasons to deny review, but stressed that the petitioner’s challenge to the sentencing instruction still may have merit. Stevens explained that the instruction at issue allowed a jury to impose death based on broadly moral language that could describe many murders. He cited earlier rulings that struck down similar, vague moral language in capital cases and said the trial instruction appears plainly impermissible under those precedents.

Real world impact

This ruling leaves the petition unresolved and does not finally decide whether the instruction violates constitutional limits. Justice Stevens’s opinion signals to lower courts and trial judges that broadly worded moral descriptions as aggravating factors in capital cases are legally suspect. Defense lawyers and prosecutors should note that such vague instructions may be overturned if the Court reaches the merits later, affecting how juries are instructed in future death‑penalty trials.