Beard v. Banks
Banks was sentenced to death for the murders of thirteen people in 1982. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on direct appeal and on appeal for state post-conviction relief. Banks then sought a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, which was denied. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, finding that the instructions given at the sentencing phase violated the rule in Mills v. Maryland, which overturned a death sentence when a jury understood the sentencing instructions to preclude consideration of mitigating factors not unanimously found to exist. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals because it had not considered whether it was improperly applying a new rule of law retroactively under the principles of Teague v. Lane (the decision in Mills was announced after Banks' conviction was final). On remand, the court of appeals held that Mills did not announce a new principle of law for retroactivity purposes, and thus its application of Mills to its review of Banks' sentence was proper.
Questions Presented:
1. Does this Court's decision in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988) constitute a new rule of law that cannot be applied retroactively to award sentencing relief to a prisoner whose
conviction became final before Mills was announced?
2. If Mills applies retroactively, where a state supreme court has rejected a Mills challenge because neither the trial court's instructions nor the verdict form advised the jury
that it must be unanimous as to the existence of mitigating circumstances and, to the contrary, made clear that unanimity was required only to find aggravating circumstances and to impose a
sentence of death, is that decision a reasonable application of this Court's precedent?
