William Arthur Kelly v. South Carolina (534 U.S. 246)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 9, 2002 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 534 U.S. 246 · 122 S. Ct. 726
- Decided
- January 9, 2002
- Term
- October Term 2001
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. Last Term, we reiterated the holding of Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994), that when “a capital defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue, and the only sentencing alternative to death available to the jury is life imprisonment without possibility of parole, due process entitles the defendant ‘to inform the jury of [his] parole ineligibility, either by a jury instruction or in arguments by counsel.’ ” Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U. S. 36, 39 (2001) (quoting Ramdass v. Angelone, 530 U. S. 156, 165 (2000) (plurality opinion)). In this ease, the Supreme Court of South Carolina held Simmons inapposite for two reasons: state law provided the jury with a third sentencing alternative, and future dangerousness was not at issue. Each reason was error. I In 1996, the State of South Carolina indicted petitioner William Kelly for an extraordinarily brutal murder, kidnap-ing, and armed robbery, and for possession of a knife during the commission of a violent crime. The jury convicted Kelly on all charges. The trial then proceeded to a separate sentencing phase calling for the jury to determine whether any aggravating factor had been shown and, if so, to choose between recommendations of death or life imprisonment. The prosecutor began by telling the jurors that “I hope you never in your lives again have to experience…
Excerpt of a 21,232-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.