Gardner V. Florida Case Study

Gardner v. Florida established that the imposition of the death sentence by a jury must "be, and appear to be, based on reason, rather than caprice or emotion." While it must be assumed that the jury is aware of the emotional impact of a murder such as this, it does not need to be presented formally during the sentencing stage. It cannot be argued that the use of victim impact statements serve any purpose other “than to inflame the jury and divert it from deciding the case on the relevant evidence concerning the crime and the defendant.” It is hard to imagine that the statements and characterizations as well as the recommendations will not unduly influence the sentence handed down by the jury. Victim impact statements are a blatant play at

The introduction of the victim’s family members feelings since the murder, characterization of the crime, and recommended sentence is, while respected and unfortunate, wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand. This court has held that juries must reach their decision through careful consideration of the circumstances of the crime and the reputation and character of the defendant. Any other information is irrelevant and may divert the jury from its intended purpose. In addition, victim impact statements may lead to arbitrary and capricious sentencing because not all victims have family members willing or able to provide testimony in a clear manner and not all victims have the same level of social standing. We should not be determining if a defendant should live or die on these factors because it devalues the lives of some victims. These standards would lead to an inevitable trial on the character and reputation of the victim, an outcome that no party wants to see. Finally, defendants do not receive a fair chance for rebuttal, when victim impact states are presented, because it is not to the strategic advantage of the defendant. Any attempt to besmirch the reputation of the victim or question the emotions of surviving family members would be inconsiderate and hurt the defendant in the eyes of any jury. Victim impact statements serve no other purpose

The Tenth Circuit “has routinely disagreed with this Court’s [Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals] reasoning on this issue, and ask the court to reconsider its position.” In response the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals responded, “While always mindful of the respect due to other courts, the Tenth Circuit's interpretation of this issue is not binding on this Court. We decline the invitation to reconsider our consistent position on this issue.” This is a case of clear and willful ignorance as to the Supreme Court precedent. The state of Oklahoma is intentionally violating constitutional law in order to sway more juries to sentence defendants to death. The Tenth Circuit has stated, “While there is no direct action we can take to halt this contumacious behavior,” there is “one federal court that can directly correct the OCCA’s unreasonable interpretation: the United States Supreme Court.” For this reason, the Court must act. Oklahoma refuses to adhere to the precedent laid out in Booth and Payne, even after repeated scolding from the Tenth Circuit. Petitioner has argued, “The OCCA has signaled that it will continue to act in an unconstitutional manner on this issue until told otherwise by this Court.” Therefore this court must act, so as to correct the actions of a rouge state refusing to follow constitutional