United States Supreme Court
Case Summaries 2000
(3/20/00 -No. 99-5746)

Criminal Law

WEEKS v. ANGELONE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (3/20/00 -No. 99-5746)

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Argued December 6, 1999--Decided January 19, 2000

After a Virginia jury found petitioner Weeks guilty of capital murder, the
prosecution sought to prove two aggravating circumstances in the penalty
phase, and the defense presented 10 witnesses in mitigation. During
deliberations, the jurors sent the trial judge a note asking whether, if
they believed Weeks guilty of at least one of the aggravating circumstances,
it was their duty to issue the death penalty, or whether they must decide
whether to issue the death penalty or a life sentence.

The judge respondedby directing them to a paragraph in their instructions stating:
" `If you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proved, beyond a reasonable
doubt, either of the two [aggravating circumstances], and as to that
alternative, you are unanimous, then you may fix the punishment . . . at
death, or if you believe from all the evidence that the death penalty is not
justified, then you shall fix the punishment . . . at [life] imprisonment.'
" Over two hours later, the jury returned its verdict, which read: "[H]aving
unanimously found that [Weeks'] conduct in committing the offense [satisfied
one of the aggravating circumstances], and having considered the evidence in
mitigation . . . , [we] unanimously fix his punishment at death." The jurors
were polled and all responded affirmatively that the foregoing was their
verdict. In his direct appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, Weeks'
assignment of error respecting the judge's answering the jury's question
about mitigating circumstances was number 44. That court affirmed Weeks'
conviction and sentence on direct appeal and later dismissed his state
habeas petition. The Federal District Court denied him federal habeas
relief, and the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and
dismissed his petition.

Held:

1. The Constitution is not violated when a trial judge directs a
capital jury's attention to a specific paragraph of a constitutionally
sufficient instruction in response to a question regarding the proper
consideration of mitigating evidence. Weeks misplaces his reliance on
Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U. S. 607, 611
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=326&invol=607&pageno=611,
and Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 114
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=455&invol=104&pageno=114,
both of which are inapposite in this case. Here, the
trial judge gave precisely the same Virginia capital instruction that was
upheld in Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U. S. 269, 277
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=522&invol=269&pageno=277,

as being sufficient to allow the jury to consider
mitigating evidence. The judge also gave a specific instruction on
mitigating evidence that was not given in Buchanan. The Constitution does
not require anything more, as a jury is presumed both to follow its
instructions, Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U. S. 200, 211
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=481&invol=200&pageno=211

, and to understand a judge's answer to its question, see,
e.g., Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. 258, 279. To presume otherwise would
require reversal every time a jury inquires about a matter of constitutional
significance, regardless of the judge's answer. Here, the presumption gains
additional support from empirical factors, including that each of the jurors
affirmed the verdict in open court, they deliberated for more than two hours
after receiving the judge's answer to their question, and defense counsel
specifically explained to them during closing argument that they could find
both aggravating factors proven and still not sentence petitioner to death.
At best, Weeks has demonstrated only that there exists a slight possibility
that the jury considered itself precluded from considering mitigating
evidence. Such a demonstration is insufficient to prove a constitutional
violation under Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 380
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=494&invol=370&pageno=380,
which requires the showing of a reasonable likelihood
that the jury felt so restrained. It also appears that Weeks' attorney did
not view the judge's answer to the jury's question as a serious flaw in the
trial at that time, since he made an oral motion to set aside the death
sentence and did not even mention this incident. And the low priority and
space which counsel assigned to the point on direct appeal suggests that the
present emphasis was an afterthought. Pp. 5-11.

2. Federal habeas relief is barred by 28 U. S. C. §2254(d). For the
foregoing reasons, it follows a fortiori that the adjudication of the State
Supreme Court's affirmance of Weeks' sentence and conviction was neither
"contrary to," nor involved an "unreasonable application of," any of this
Court's decisions as the statute requires. Pp. 11-12.
176 F. 3d 249, affirmed.

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Connor,
Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting
opinion, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined, and in which Souter, J.,
joined as to Parts II, III, and IV.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/99-5746.html
WEEKS v. ANGELONE, DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS-FCP



FINDLAW US SUPREME COURT CASE SUMMARIES
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
FindLaw Law Library - legal guides, memos and briefs
http://library.findlaw.com
FindLaw Tech Deals
http://techdeals.findlaw.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Have a GREAT  DAY!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2000