Theodore Robert Bundy v. Richard L. Dugger

Citation: 488 U.S. 1036Docket: A-580; A-585; A-586

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; January 23, 1989; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Court of the United States denied applications for a stay of execution for Theodore Robert Bundy, as presented to Justice Kennedy and referred to the Court. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented, arguing that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Brennan would have granted the stays pending a petition for certiorari in the related case of Dugger v. Adams.

Brennan highlighted concerns regarding the constitutionality of relying on jury determinations in death penalty cases, particularly in light of Caldwell v. Mississippi, where it was ruled that a death sentence cannot rest on a belief that the jury's role is merely advisory. He noted that the repeated instructions given to Florida jurors indicated their role was limited to providing an advisory opinion, which contrasted with Florida law that mandates significant weight for jury recommendations. 

Brennan pointed out that the comments made by prosecutors and judges during Bundy’s trial regarding the jury's advisory role were not isolated incidents but consistent messaging, raising questions about their constitutionality under Caldwell. He argued there is no justifiable reason to dismiss these concerns, especially since similar cases were pending a decision in Dugger v. Adams.

Furthermore, Brennan refuted any procedural objections to considering Bundy's claims, noting that the State did not raise such objections in lower courts, thus waiving them. Justice Blackmun and Justice Stevens also expressed support for granting stays in the respective applications.