Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman & Brewer v. Quarterman (consolidated)
Abdul-Kabir and Brewer were convicted of committing separate murders in Texas state courts and sentenced to death. During their sentencing hearings, both men introduced evidence of mental impairment and childhood mistreatment. In the penalty phase of both cases, juries were instructed using the Texas "special issue" capital sentencing jury instructions. The instructions ask jurors to give a yes or no answer to two questions: (1) whether the defendant killed "deliberately," and (2) whether the defendant would probably constitute a "continuing threat to society." In Abdul-kabir's case, the jury was given a supplemental instruction, telling it to consider the mitigating evidence and answer "no" to one of the special issues if a life sentence would be a more appropriate sentence. After their convictions were affirmed on appeal, both men unsuccessfully pursued state habeas relief.
A federal district court denied Abdul-Kabir's petition for habeas corpus, which argued in part that the Texas special issue jury instructions do not permit the jury to adequately consider the mitigating evidence about mental impairment and childhood mistreatment. The Fifth Circuit Court of appeals affirmed the district court, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari, then remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit in light of its opinion inTennard v. Dretke. On remand, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed the denial of the petition, holding that the Texas special issues allowed the jury to give “full consideration and full effect” to the mitigating evidence presented at the punishment phase of the trial.
A federal district court conditionally granted Brewer's petition for habeas corpus, holding that the special issue jury instructions were a
constitutionally inadequate vehicle for the jury to give effect to his mitigating evidence, which included evidence of mental
illness, substance abuse, and a troubled childhood. On Appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the two-pronged special issue instructions
allowed the jury to adequately incorporate evidence of short-term mental illness, substance abuse, and familty background into its decision.
Questions Presented (for both cases):
1. Do the former Texas "special issue" capital sentencing jury instructions - which permit jurors to register only a "yes" or "no" answer to two questions, inquiring whether the defendant killed "deliberately" and would probably constitute a "continuing threat to society" - permit constitutionally adequate consideration of mitigating evidence about a defendant's mental impairment and childhood mistreatment and deprivation, in light of this Court's emphatic statement in Smith v. Texas, 543 US 37, 48 (2004), that those same two questions "had little, if anything, to do with" Smith's evidence of mental impairment and childhood treatment?
2. Do this Court's recent opinions in Penry v. Johnson, 532 US 782 (2001) ("Penry II"), and Smith, both of which require instructions that permit jurors to give "full consideration and full effect" to a defendant's mitigating evidence in choosing the appropriate sentence, preclude the Fifth Circuit from adhering to its prior decisions - antedating Penry II and Smith- that reject Penry error whenever the former special issues might have afforded some indirect consideration of the defendant's mitigating evidence?
3. Has the Fifth Circuit, in insisting that a defendant show as a predicate to relief under Penry that he suffers from a mental disorder that is severe, permanent or untreatable, simply resurrected the threshold test for "constitutional relevance" that this Court emphatically rejected in Tennard v. Dretke, 542 US 274 (2004)?
4. Where the prosecution, as it did here, repeatedly implores jurors to "follow the law" and "do their duty" by answering the former Texas special issues on their own terms and abjuring any attempt to use their answers to effect an appropriate sentence, is it reasonably likely that jurors applied their instructions in a way the prevented them from fully considering and giving effect to the defendant's mitigating evidence?
Decisions under Review:
Supreme Court Opinions:
