Roper v. Weaver
Weaver was convicted of murder in a Missouri state court. After his conviction was affirmed by the Missouri higher courts, he filed a federal habeas petition, which was granted in part by the district court. Weaver argued that the prosecutor made inflammatory statements during the penalty phase of the trial that impermissibly prejudiced the jury.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the federal courts can overturn state court decisions only when the state court adjudication "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States." The Eighth Circuit noted that there were Supreme Court decisions on penalty phase closing arguments, and that the Supreme Court decisions on guilt phase closing arguments that are also relevant. It determined that the prosecutor's closing arguments were "unfairly inflammatory" under prevailing law, and that the Missouri court's determination otherwise was an "unreasonable" application of clearly established federal law.
Question Presented:
Since this court has neither held a prosecutor’s penalty phase closing argument to violate due process, nor articulated, in response to a penalty phase claim, what the standard of error and prejudice would be, does a court of appeals exceed its authority under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) by overturning a capital sentence on the ground that the prosecutor’s penalty phase closing argument was “unfairly inflammatory?”
