Capital Case Jurors Need Term Facts, Justices Say

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that jurors must be told the full truth when they are deciding whether to sentence a murderer to death or to life in prison.

On a 7-2 vote, the court reversed the death penalty for a South Carolina man who was condemned to die by jurors who were confused about the meaning of the phrase “life imprisonment.”

Before jurors make “the moral judgment” of life or death for a convicted murderer, they “must be told the defendant is ineligible for parole,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Tuesday’s decision highlights two little-noted trends in capital punishment.

In recent years, all but five states have adopted laws that put convicted murderers behind bars for the rest of their lives. Once sentenced under these laws, they have no option for parole.

Opponents of the death penalty say they support these no-parole laws for murderers.

“It removes the rationale for the death penalty for many people,” said David Bruck, an anti-death penalty lawyer in Columbia, S.C. “For most Americans, life in prison is an adequate alternative to the death penalty.”

California was one of the first states to adopt life in prison without parole as an alternative to the death sentence. Now 34 of the 38 states with capital punishment have adopted no-parole laws, according to the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington.

One notable exception to the trend is Texas, which does not have a no-parole law and leads the nation in executions.

While most states have been strengthening their life-in-prison laws, the high court has been insisting on truth in sentencing.

Many jurors fear that the killer they face across the courtroom will be released from prison someday and commit additional crimes. To prevent that, they vote for the death penalty.

Seven years ago, in an earlier South Carolina case, the high court said that prosecutors may not use this confusion to win death sentences.

Justice Harry Blackmun faulted prosecutors in 1994 for creating a “false dilemma” for jurors.

That case involved a trial in which prosecutors argued that the defendant represented a “future danger” to the community and should be sentenced to death. In reality, the convicted murderer would have never left prison alive, regardless of what the jury did.

Despite Blackmun’s opinion in the case of Simmons vs. South Carolina, the high court continues to see cases where jurors are left confused.

In the case decided Tuesday, jurors in Union County, S.C., were debating the fate of 18-year-old Wesley Aaron Shafer, who had shot and killed a convenience store clerk.

Under a new state law, he faced either death or life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The prosecutor described Shafer as a violent and dangerous criminal. The judge advised the jurors that they had to decide on either “life imprisonment or death” for Shafer.

After more than three hours of deliberation, the jurors sent a note to the judge asking if there was “any remote chance” that the defendant would become eligible for parole.

The judge refused to clarify the situation. “Parole eligibility or ineligibility is not for your consideration,” he said.

An hour later, the jury returned and sentenced Shafer to death.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court reversed that decision and ordered a new sentencing hearing in the case of Shafer vs. South Carolina, 00-5250.

Dissenting were Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In separate opinions, Scalia said the court has no authority to impose “wise national rules of criminal procedure,” and Thomas faulted the majority for “micromanaging state sentencing proceedings.”