Romano v. Oklahoma, 512 U.S. 1, 22 (1994)

Page:   Index   Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

22

ROMANO v. OKLAHOMA

Ginsburg, J., dissenting

key portions of Caldwell that the Court attributes to a plurality of four were joined by five of the eight Justices who participated in that case. Justice O Connor parted company with the other Members of the majority only as to a discrete, three-paragraph section, Part IV-A (id., at 335- 336), in which "[t]he Court," in her view, "seem[ed] generally to characterize information regarding appellate review as 'wholly irrelevant to the determination of the appropriate sentence.' " Id., at 342 (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment), quoting id., at 336. Justice O Connor explained that she did not read California v. Ramos, 463 U. S. 992 (1983), "to imply that the giving of nonmis-leading and accurate information regarding the jury's role in the sentencing scheme is irrelevant to the sentencing decision." 472 U. S., at 341 (emphasis deleted). It was in that context that Justice O Connor stated her view, quoted ante, at 8-9, that " 'the prosecutor's remarks were impermissible,' " not because they referred to the existence of post-sentence review, but "because they were inaccurate and misleading in a manner that diminished the jury's sense of responsibility." 472 U. S., at 342.

Justice O Connor's opinion thus appears to rest on "grounds narrower" than those relied upon by the other Members of the Court's Caldwell majority, see ante, at 9, only insofar as her concurrence disavowed any implication that the "giving of accurate instructions regarding postsentencing procedures," 472 U. S., at 342, is irrelevant or unconstitutional. The evidence of Romano's death sentence for the murder of Thompson, however, was not information regarding postsentencing procedures Romano might pursue. Nor, as the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals found, was the "Judgment and Sentence" for Thompson's murder relevant to the Sarfaty jury's sentencing decision. 847 P. 2d, at 391 ("evidence of the imposition of the death penalty by another jury is not relevant in determining the appropriateness

Page:   Index   Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007