Convicted Slayers Allowed Evidence of Good Behavior

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that convicted murderers seeking to avoid the death penalty must be allowed to present evidence that they exhibited good behavior while in jail awaiting trial after the crime.

By unanimous vote, the justices overturned the capital sentence of a South Carolina defendant who had been prevented from offering favorable testimony from his jailers in a bid to show that he would behave himself in prison if his life were spared.

The court, extending the scope of previous rulings on the issue, said that the defendant in the case had been improperly denied an opportunity to present all the “mitigating evidence” he could to escape capital punishment.

‘Aggravating Factors’

Earlier decisions have required the admission of any “relevant” aspect of a defendant’s character and record and the circumstances of the crime as mitigating evidence in his behalf. But it was not clear that the requirement applied to conduct after a crime. The prosecution, in turn, has been allowed to cite “aggravating factors” in a case that show why the death penalty should be imposed.

Justice Byron R. White, writing for the court Tuesday, declared: “A defendant’s disposition to make a well-behaved and peaceful adjustment to life in prison is itself an aspect of his character that is by its nature relevant to the sentencing determination.”

But three justices, while agreeing that the sentence in this case should be set aside, said the court’s broadly worded ruling went too far in requiring the admission of evidence of behavior after a crime has been committed.

“Almost by definition, such conduct neither excuses the defendant’s crime nor reduces his responsibility for its commission,” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote in a concurring opinion joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Cites Future Cases

Powell expressed deep doubt that a convicted defendant’s behavior before trial would accurately predict his conduct after sentencing. “After today’s decision, competent defense counsel in capital cases will instruct their clients to behave like Eagle Scouts while awaiting trial,” he noted.

The court’s decision came as a rebuff to attorneys general in 10 states--not including California--that had joined South Carolina authorities in contending that a state must be allowed to bar the introduction of such evidence as irrelevant and speculative.

In California, evidence of a capital defendant’s behavior in jail already is generally admissible under state law and thus the court’s decision is likely to have little impact there, according to Deputy Atty. Gen. Edward O’Brien, the state’s death penalty coordinator.

In the case before the court, Ronald DeRay Skipper was convicted of the rape and strangulation murder of Maryanne Wray in Garden City, S.C., in 1982.

Testimony From Guards

In the sentencing phase of the trial, Skipper sought to offer testimony from two jail guards and a counselor who visited him frequently to support his contention that he had made a good adjustment to prison and that if he were given a life sentence--instead of death--he would behave and work in prison to help support his family. A trial judge barred the testimony on the grounds it was irrelevant.

Meanwhile, the prosecution argued that based on other past behavior, Skipper was likely to pose disciplinary problems and make sexual attacks on other prisoners. The jury returned a sentence of death and Skipper appealed, contending that his constitutional rights were violated.

In their decision (Skipper vs. South Carolina, 64-6859), the justices concluded that the evidence Skipper sought to offer about his ability to adjust to life in prison was “highly relevant” to the jury.

In further proceedings, the court said, the state may seek to reimpose the death penalty on Skipper but he must have the opportunity to present the testimony that was barred.

In his concurrence, Powell agreed that the sentence must be overturned but said it should have been based on the narrow grounds that Skipper should have been given a chance to rebut the prosecution’s contention that he was “hopelessly violent.”

Unloaded Gun ‘Dangerous’

In another decision (McLaughlin vs. U.S., 85-5189), the justices, resolving conflicting decisions among federal appeals courts, ruled unanimously that under federal law, an unloaded handgun is a “dangerous weapon,” subjecting convicted bank robbers to longer prison terms.