Bonin v. California
William George Bonin v. California
Opinion of the Court
Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio-rari denied.
Dissent
Justice Marshall, with whom Justice Brennan joins,
dissenting.
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 231 (1976) (Marshall, J., dissenting), I would grant the petition for certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case. Even *1092 if I did not hold this view, I would grant the petition to resolve the question whether a trial court may instruct a penalty phase jury that, “[i]f you conclude that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, you shall impose a sentence of death.” As I stated in Hamilton v. California, 488 U. S. 1047 (1989) (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), “I have grave doubts that such an instruction permits the individualized and reliable sentencing determination that the Constitution requires in capital cases, particularly where, as here, it is coupled with prosecutorial remarks stressing the limits on jurors’ discretion.” Ibid. I dissent.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
489 U.S. 1091 109 S.Ct. 1561 103 L.Ed.2d 864
William George BONIN, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.
No. 88-6341.
Supreme Court of the United States
March 20, 1989
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Motion for Leave to File Petition for Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1989.
See 493 U.S. 914 , 110 S.Ct. 272 .
Justice MARSHALL, with whom Justice BRENNAN joins, dissenting.
1
Adhering to my view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 231 , 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2973 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting), I would grant the petition for certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case. Even if I did not hold this view, I would grant the petition to resolve the question whether a trial court may instruct a penalty phase jury that, "[i]f you conclude that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, you shall impose a sentence of death." As I stated in Hamilton v. California, 488 U.S. 1047 , 109 S.Ct. 879 , 102 L.Ed.2d 1002 (1989) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing), "I have grave doubts that such an instruction permits the individualized and reliable sentencing determination that the Constitution requires in capital cases, particularly where, as here, it is coupled with prosecutorial remarks stressing the limits on jurors' discretion." Id., at 1047 , 109 S.Ct. at 880. I dissent.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- William George Bonin v. Arthur Calderon, as Warden of San Quentin State Prison James Rowland, Director of the California Department of Corrections
- People v. Pitts
- Michael Wayne Jennings v. Jeanne Woodford, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin
- Sobeck & Associates, Inc. v. B & R Investments No. 24
Most recent
- Michael Wayne Jennings v. Jeanne Woodford, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin
- William George Bonin v. Arthur Calderon, as Warden of San Quentin State Prison James Rowland, Director of the California Department of Corrections
- People v. Pitts
- Sobeck & Associates, Inc. v. B & R Investments No. 24
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.