Gardner V. Florida Case Study

Gardner v. Florida established that the imposition of the death sentence by a jury must "be, and appear to be, based on reason, rather than caprice or emotion." While it must be assumed that the jury is aware of the emotional impact of a murder such as this, it does not need to be presented formally during the sentencing stage. It cannot be argued that the use of victim impact statements serve any purpose other “than to inflame the jury and divert it from deciding the case on the relevant evidence concerning the crime and the defendant.” It is hard to imagine that the statements and characterizations as well as the recommendations will not unduly influence the sentence handed down by the jury. Victim impact statements are a blatant play at

the jury’s emotions and an attempt to inflame their feelings in pursuit of aggravating factors. And as Justice Powell argues, “The admission of these emotionally charged opinions as to what conclusions the jury should draw from the evidence clearly is inconsistent with the reasoned decision making we require in capital cases.” It would be nearly impossible for a jury to decide a sentence with reason instead of emotion as they are directed to do through this Court’s precedent and for this reason victim impact statements should not be admissible as relevant during the sentencing phase of a capital sentence trial.
Amicus has argued that the use of victim impact statements is a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment rights of the petitioner.

The introduction of the victim’s family members feelings since the murder, characterization of the crime, and recommended sentence is, while respected and unfortunate, wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand. This court has held that juries must reach their decision through careful consideration of the circumstances of the crime and the reputation and character of the defendant. Any other information is irrelevant and may divert the jury from its intended purpose. In addition, victim impact statements may lead to arbitrary and capricious sentencing because not all victims have family members willing or able to provide testimony in a clear manner and not all victims have the same level of social standing. We should not be determining if a defendant should live or die on these factors because it devalues the lives of some victims. These standards would lead to an inevitable trial on the character and reputation of the victim, an outcome that no party wants to see. Finally, defendants do not receive a fair chance for rebuttal, when victim impact states are presented, because it is not to the strategic advantage of the defendant. Any attempt to besmirch the reputation of the victim or question the emotions of surviving family members would be inconsiderate and hurt the defendant in the eyes of any jury. Victim impact statements serve no other purpose

than to inflame the emotions of the jury and, therefore, Amicus ask the court to reinstate the precedent of Booth v. Maryland, in whole, because there can not be a fair sentencing phase that relies solely on the reasoning, making the use of victim impact statements unconstitutional.
If the Court does not reinstate Booth v. Maryland, in whole, it must still overturn petitioner’s sentence because Oklahoma’s version of victim impact statements is in conflict with Court precedent as it relates to Booth and Payne v. Tennessee. Oklahoma Law as it relates to victim impact statements is as follows:
“Victim impact statements" means information about the financial, emotional, psychological, and physical effects of a violent crime on each victim and members of their immediate family, or person designated by the victim or by family members of the victim and includes information about the victim, circumstances surrounding the crime, the manner in which the crime was perpetrated, and the opinion of the victim of a recommended sentence.”

The part at issue with Court precedent in Booth and Payne is the last section stating, “and the opinion of the victim of a recommended sentence.”
Respondent argues that the Court’s ruling in Payne overturned the holding in Booth that victim impact statements recommending a specific sentence are irrelevant to sentencing proceedings. While it is true that the Court has decided the Eight Amendment does not bar victim impact statements per se, Oklahoma’s conclusion that “Payne made it clear that the states were again free to establish procedures for the introduction of victim impact evidence, subject to the criminal defendant's right to due process of law.” This, however, is blatantly false and an outlier as an interpretation of the Court’s decision in that case. The Court did not address the issue of sentence recommendation in Payne v. Tennessee until the end of the decision in a footnote, in which the court says, “This case presents no challenge to the Court's holding in Booth v. Maryland that a sentencing authority should not receive a third category of information concerning a victim's family members' characterization of and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence.” This footnote clearly states that the Court is not overturning its stance in Booth v. Maryland, contrary to the interpretation of the state of Oklahoma’s criminal code relating to victim impact statements.
In addition, Oklahoma is alone in interpreting the Payne decision in this way. As petitioner argues, “Every jurisdiction which has addressed this issue, with the lone exception of Oklahoma, has held that the prohibition of this form of evidence, as explained in Booth v. Maryland, remains intact following Payne v. Tennessee.” Oklahoma has been made aware of the fact that it is the lone state that uses victim impact statements in this way and still, “Despite this Court’s clearly established law banning evidence of family members’ opinions about the crime and the appropriate sentence for the perpetrator, Oklahoma prosecutors and trial courts continue to allow such evidence in capital sentencing trials, as they did in this case.” Oklahoma should not be allowed to continue to practice this strategy to inflame jury emotions. It unfairly impacts Oklahoma defendants in an arbitrary and capricious manner. A defendant should not be more likely to receive capital punishment in Oklahoma because of the inflammation of juror emotions than he or she would receive in any other state, which correctly does not allow sentence recommendation during victim impact statements. As petitioner argues, “Oklahoma stands alone, an outlier, in holding that the constitution permits victim characterization of crimes and recommendations of an appropriate sentence in capital sentence proceedings. Furthermore, Justice Lucero, of the Tenth Circuit, claims, “This Case presents a troublesome and recurrent theme in capital cases arising out of the Oklahoma state courts … state prosecutors and courts have developed a pattern and practice of non-compliance with – if not outright ignoring of – United States Supreme Court precedence that specifically prohibits eliciting from a relative of the victim an opinion as to whether the death penalty should be imposed.”
Finally, the Court must interject in this case because Oklahoma will not change its practices unless it is at the behest of this court.

The Tenth Circuit “has routinely disagreed with this Court’s [Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals] reasoning on this issue, and ask the court to reconsider its position.” In response the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals responded, “While always mindful of the respect due to other courts, the Tenth Circuit's interpretation of this issue is not binding on this Court. We decline the invitation to reconsider our consistent position on this issue.” This is a case of clear and willful ignorance as to the Supreme Court precedent. The state of Oklahoma is intentionally violating constitutional law in order to sway more juries to sentence defendants to death. The Tenth Circuit has stated, “While there is no direct action we can take to halt this contumacious behavior,” there is “one federal court that can directly correct the OCCA’s unreasonable interpretation: the United States Supreme Court.” For this reason, the Court must act. Oklahoma refuses to adhere to the precedent laid out in Booth and Payne, even after repeated scolding from the Tenth Circuit. Petitioner has argued, “The OCCA has signaled that it will continue to act in an unconstitutional manner on this issue until told otherwise by this Court.” Therefore this court must act, so as to correct the actions of a rouge state refusing to follow constitutional

law.
If the court does not overturn Payne and reinstate the precedent of Booth it must overturn petitioner’s sentence as it was given in violation of the Court’s holding in Booth and Payne. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently misinterpreted the Court’s holding in Payne. The Court clearly stated it had not overturned the ban on sentencing recommendations during victim impact statements that had been laid out in Booth. In addition, Oklahoma is an outlier in interpreting Payne in this manner. No other jurisdiction has come to the same conclusion, as Oklahoma when encountering this issue and Oklahoma is the only state that allows sentence recommendation. Finally, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has made clear that it will not overturn this ban unless it is under the direction of the United States Supreme Court. The Tenth Circuit has repeatedly urged the Oklahoma courts to overturn this ruling but they have consistently ignored these pleas. This petitioner provides the final hope in halting Oklahoma’s incorrect and unconstitutional sentencing practices.