PROYECTO HIDROELÉCTRICO DE YUNCAN Y LA MAQUINA TUNELERA TBM ATLAS COPCO JARVA MK
3.4 PRINCIPALES PARTES DE LA MAQUINA 1 EL CABEZAL Y EL PORTARRODAJE
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
Background of the Case
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★Pervis Tyrone Payne was convicted by a jury of killing a 28-year-old woman and her two-year-old daughter and stabbing her three-year-old son in an apartment in Millington, Tennessee, in June 1987.
In the sentencing phase of the trial, Payne’s lawyer called on Payne’s mother and father, his girlfriend, and a clinical psychologist. The girlfriend testified that Payne was a very caring person who devoted much time to her three children, that he did not drink or take drugs, and that it was inconsistent with his character to have committed the crimes of which he had been found guilty. Payne’s parents likewise testified to his good character. The psychologist testified that Payne was mentally handicapped and that he “was the most polite prisoner he had ever met.”
The state called the mother of the adult victim, who testified that her grandson, who had survived the stabbing, cried for his mother and his dead sister; and the prosecution, in its closing argument, emphasized the likely longtime deleterious effects on the boy.
The jury sentenced Payne to death, a sentence that he appealed first to the Tennessee Supreme Court and, when that court affirmed both his convictions and death sentences, then to the United States Supreme Court.
Constitutional Issue
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★In serious criminal cases in federal courts and in the courts of many states, a jury’s responsibility does not end with deciding whether an accused person is guilty. The jury is also required to hear arguments from the prosecution and the defense as to the kind of punishment it should impose or recommend. Typically, the prosecution emphasizes the seriousness of the crime and recommends the most severe punishment. The defense attorney tries to convince the jury that a less severe sentence such as life without parole would be appropriate. In addition, in recent years, both the defense and the prosecution also call witnesses who did not testify at the trial [the guilt/innocence phase of a capital proceeding]. For the prosecution, “victim impact evidence,” relating to the emotional impact of the crime on the victim or on the victim’s family, is presented. Defense witnesses, on the other hand, may try to convey to the jury that the accused had a difficult childhood, was kind to his or her relatives, and to present other evidence that puts the defendant in a favorable light.
When, despite the defense’s effort, the jury in a murder case recommends the death sentence, the defense may appeal to higher courts on the grounds that cruel and unusual pun- ishment has been inflicted, as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. In two such cases in the 1980s the Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment did in fact bar the admission of victim impact evidence during the penalty phases of a trial for murder. In the Payne case, the Supreme Court once again was asked to rule on the admissibility of victim impact evidence.
C o p yr ig ht © b y The M cG ra w-H ill C o mpanies, Inc.
C o p yr ig ht © b y The M cG ra w-H ill C o mpanies, Inc.
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
The Supreme Court’s Decision
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★The Court ruled 6 to 3 to uphold Payne’s convictions and death sentences, and in doing so overruled two of its earlier decisions. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, much of which was devoted to explaining why the Court believed that the decisions in two earlier cases relating to the inadmissibility of victim impact statements in capital cases were wrong. In these cases, the Court had held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact evidence. Rehnquist wrote that “a State may properly conclude that for the jury to assess meaningfully the defendant’s moral culpability and blameworthiness, it should have before it at the sentencing phases evidence of the specific harm caused by the defendant.” He went on to point out that there is nothing unfair about allowing the jury to bear in mind the harm caused by a defendant’s killing at the same time it hears mitigating evidence introduced by the defendant. “We thus hold,” Rehnquist went on, “that if the State chooses to permit the admission of victim impact evidence and prosecutorial argument on that subject, the Eighth Amendment erects no per se bar. A state may legitimately conclude that evidence about the victim and about the impact of the murder on the victim’s family is relevant to the jury’s decision as to whether or not the death penalty should be imposed.”
Overruling earlier decisions of the Court is a serious matter. The Court generally proceeds on the basis of a doctrine called stare decisis, a Latin term meaning “let the decision stand.” Rehnquist took pains to defend the Court’s action in not abiding by stare decisis in this case. He pointed out that “in the past twenty terms, [the Court had overruled] 33 of its previous constitutional decisions.” Further, he noted, the cases which it was now overruling were decided by very narrow margins and were accompanied by “spirited” dissents.
DIRECTIONS: Answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper.
1. What is the meaning of the term “victim impact evidence”?
2. What two responsibilities do juries carry out in capital murder cases in federal courts and
in the courts of many states?
3. In the sentencing phase of Payne’s trial, how much weight do you think the jury gave to the
testimony of Payne’s witnesses? Defend your answer.
4. If you were one of the dissenting justices, what arguments would you present for your
position?
5. Why is it important for the Supreme Court to be careful in overruling its previous