PRINT THIS PAGE | E-MAIL THIS PAGE

Tuesday, October 21, 1997

Justices question Texas death sentencing

By RICHARD CARELLI Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Four of the Supreme Court's nine justices put Texas and its courts on notice Monday: They're carefully watching how the state lets juries choose between death or life in prison for convicted murderers.

The extraordinary warning came as the nation's highest court rejected the appeal of Texas death row inmate Arthur Brown Jr., convicted of four drug-related murders in Houston five years ago.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had upheld Brown's death sentence.

In an opinion accompanying the order rejecting Brown's appeal, Justice John Paul Stevens criticized Texas' capital sentencing law - one that has helped make Texas the nation's far-and-away leader in executions.

Of the 59 executions in the United States this year, 31 have been in Texas. Since the Supreme Court ended a four-year legal moratorium on capital punishment in 1976, 417 have been executed - 138 of them in Texas.

"Although juries are required to assess a capital defendant's 'future dangerousness' before sentencing him to death," Stevens noted, "he is prohibited from presenting truthful information to the jury about when he would be eligible for parole if sentenced to life."

Stevens, whose opinion was joined by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, noted that Brown would have had to spend 35 years in prison before being eligible for parole if sentenced to life.

Brown sought to have the jury learn of that fact but was prevented from doing so by Texas law.

Stevens' opinion cited a 1994 Supreme Court ruling that said convicted murderers can tell sentencing juries when there's no chance they could be paroled if sentenced to life in prison, and added "there is obvious tension between this rule and our basic holding" in that decision.

And he noted that under Texas law, juries considering punishments in cases not involving a possible death sentence must be told when a defendant would be eligible for parole.

"Perversely," Stevens said, the rule is different in capital cases. "The Texas rule unquestionably tips the scales in favor of a death sentence that a fully informed jury might not impose," he said.

The four justices did not disagree with the court's action in Brown's case, however. In fact, only four votes are needed to grant review to such appeals.

Instead, Stevens said, their purpose was to drive home the point that the court doesn't always grant review even when it thinks a lower court was wrong.

"The likelihood that the issue will be resolved correctly may increase if this court allows other tribunals to serve as laboratories in which the issue receives further study before it is addressed by this court," Stevens wrote.

The case is Brown vs. Texas, 96-9187. Send a Letter to the Editor about This Story | Start or Join A Discussion about This Story
Send the URL (Address) of This Story to A Friend: