October Term 2003 · Docket 02-1603
Can a jury ignore mitigating evidence if not all members agree to reject it?
Defense lawyers argue that a jury instruction requiring unanimity to reject mitigating evidence violates the Constitution. The state argues the instruction was proper.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ronald Eisenberg represented the sides that brought the case. He detailed the extensive mitigation evidence presented at trial. He emphasized the jury instruction requiring unanimity to reject evidence.
Mr. Flora represented the opposing sides. He cited Lockett and Eddings as foundational precedents. He argued that barriers to full consideration of mitigating evidence are impermissible.
Chief Justice Rehnquist closed the argument. He stated the case was submitted for decision.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 9-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 13-17
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case concerns a jury instruction given during a 1983 murder trial. The instruction told jurors they must consider mitigating evidence unless they unanimously rejected it. The defense argues this rule prevents full consideration of the defendant's background. The state argues the instruction was legally sound.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 9-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-25
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 24, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
The defense wants the Court to strike down the jury instruction. They argue it unconstitutionally blocks full consideration of mitigating evidence.
The state wants the Court to uphold the jury instruction. They argue the instruction did not violate constitutional requirements.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 9-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-25
What each side says
The defense argues that Lockett and Eddings require full consideration of mitigating evidence. They claim a unanimity requirement creates an unconstitutional barrier.
The state argues the instruction allowed the jury to consider all evidence. They contend the requirement did not preclude full effect of the evidence.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 9-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-25
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted after the opening statement. He did not ask a substantive legal question during the provided text.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 13-17
Why it matters
This dispute defines how juries must weigh a defendant's background. It determines whether unanimity requirements can limit the impact of mitigating evidence. The outcome shapes sentencing procedures in capital cases nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 9-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-25
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 45, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 45, lines 13-17
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 9-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 9-5 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 9-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-25
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.