NCJ Number
150747
Journal
New England Law Review Volume: 27 Issue: 3 Dated: (Spring 1993) Pages: 713- 748
Date Published
1993
Length
36 pages
Annotation
This article critiques the rationale for the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Payne v. Tennessee (1991), which held that the eighth amendment does not erect a per se bar that prohibits victim-impact evidence relating to the victim's personal characteristics and the emotional impact on the victim's family from consideration at a capital sentencing hearing.
Abstract
The Court also held that the eighth amendment does not preclude the prosecutor from arguing the victim-impact evidence to the capital sentencing jury. In reaching this decision, the Court overturned two recent cases, Booth v. Maryland and South Carolina v. Gathers, to the extent that they held to the contrary. Part II of this article provides an overview of the recent developments in the victim rights movement, and Part III reviews the development of victim- impact evidence as the sentencing phase of capital trials, including the cases of Booth v. Maryland and Gathers v. South Carolina. Part IV examines the facts of Payne v. Tennessee and the previous proceedings of the case, followed by Part V, which considers the majority and dissenting Supreme Court opinions in "Payne." In Part VI, the author explores the "Payne" opinions and concludes that there were no "special justifications" that warranted overruling recent precedent and that the Court incorrectly held that victim- impact evidence is relevant to the capital sentencing proceeding. Part VI also examines alternatives available to capital defendant to mitigate or exclude emotional or prejudicial victim impact testimony from capital sentencing hearings. 320 footnotes