NCJ Number
52042
Journal
Virginia Law Review Volume: 63 Issue: 7 Dated: (NOVEMBER 1977) Pages: 1281-1298
Date Published
1977
Length
18 pages
Annotation
A U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT MAY EXTEND DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS TO NONCAPITAL SENTENCING PROCEDURES IS ANALYZED.
Abstract
IN GARDNER V. FLORIDA, THE COURT DECIDED THAT DEFENDANTS MAY NOT BE SENTENCED TO DEATH ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN OR DENY. RATHER THAN RELYING ON EIGHTH AMENDMENT REASONING AS OTHER CAPITAL CASES HAD, A PLURALITY IN THE GARDNER DECISION USED DUE PROCESS ANALYSIS TO INVALIDATE NONDISCLOSURE OF A PRESENTENCE REPORT. BY USING THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE INSTEAD OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND BY STATING OUTRIGHT THAT DUE PROCESS APPLIES TO SENTENCING, THE PLURALITY MAY HAVE OVERCOME THE SELF-LIMITING NATURE OF EARLIER CASES REQUIRING SPECIAL SENTENCING PROCEDURES IN CAPITAL CASES. THE DUE PROCESS REASONING AND BALANCING TEST USED IN GARDNER MAY ALLOW DEFENDENTS FACING POTENTIAL PRISON SENTENCES OR FINES TO CLAIM LIBERTY OR PROPERTY INTERESTS SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS. IF LIBERTY OR PROPERTY INTERESTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES AT SENTENCING, COURTS MAY TURN TO THE MINIMUM DUE PROCESS GUARANTEES OUTLINED BY THE COURT IN MORRISSEY V. BREWER (A DECISION REGARDING DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF PAROLEES FACED WITH REVOCATION). HOWEVER, THE COURTS MAY GO FURTHER THAN THESE MINIMUM PROCEDURES AND TURN TO THE REASONING AND PROCEDURES DELINEATED IN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CASES, OR DEVELOP ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES OF THEIR OWN. THE GARDNER DECISION MAY PROVE TO BE SIMPLY ANOTHER CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CASE WITH NO FURTHER IMPLICATIONS. HOWEVER, A DECISION LIMITING THE BROAD LANGUAGE IN GARDNER WILL BE NEEDED BEFORE THE REACH OF THE GARDNER DECISION NECESSARILY MUST BE CONSTRUED NARROWLY. IN THE MEANTIME, GARDNER WILL BE USED BY DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO CHALLENGE EXISTING SENTENCING PROCEDURES AND MAY BE USED TO ALTER THOSE PROCEDURES. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)