Nicks v. Alabama

Citation101 L.Ed.2d 948,108 S.Ct. 2916,487 U.S. 1241
Decision Date30 June 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-6977,87-6977
PartiesHarry NICKS v. ALABAMA
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

See 487 U.S. 1263, 109 S.Ct. 27.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice MARSHALL, with whom Justice BRENNAN joins, dissenting.

I continue to believe that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, see Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 231-241, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2973-2977, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). But even if I did not hold this view, I would grant the petition for writ of certiorari and vacate the death sentence in this case, because the sentence was secured in flagrant violation of our decision in Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985).

In Caldwell we vacated a sentence of death because the prosecutor "sought to minimize the jury's sense of the importance of its role" by stressing to the jury that its verdict would be subject to appellate review. Id., at 325, 105 S.Ct., at 2637. The prosecutor told the jury during the sentencing phase that "your decision is not the final de- cision. . . . Your job is reviewable." Ibid. We held that "it is constitutionally impermissible to rest a death sentence on a determination made by a sentencer who has been led to believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant's death rests elsewhere." Id., at 328-329, 105 S.Ct., at 2639-2640.

Petitioner's sentence of death cannot be squared with our decision in Caldwell. The prosecutor in this case made the following argument to the jury at the penalty phase of petitioner's trial:

"The opinion, which you will come to a conclusion when you go back and deliberate—Let me say this, it will be only an advisory opinion. The law provides for you to present this to the Court for their consideration. The ultimate decisions [sic] rests with Judge Reynolds. He will be the one to take whatever ruling that you send out and decide whether it will be life without parole or death by electrocution in the electric chair." Pet. for Cert. 3.

This argument, perhaps even more baldly than the statements in Caldwell, sought to minimize the jury's sense of its awesome responsibility to determine whether petitioner would live or die by encouraging the jury to view its verdict as merely "advisory." This shifting of the jury's sense of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
192 cases
  • Capote v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 10 Enero 2020
    ...inadmissible. Nicks v. State, 521 So. 2d 1018 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987), aff'd, 521 So. 2d 1035 (Ala.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S. Ct. 2916, 101 L. Ed. 2d 948 (1988). However, evidence of collateral crimes or bad acts is admissible as part of the prosecutor's case if the defendant's c......
  • Doster v. State Of Ala.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 30 Julio 2010
    ...(quoting Nicks v. State, 521 So. 2d 1018, 1030-31 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987), aff'd, 521 So.2d 1035 (Ala.), cert, denied, 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S.Ct. 2916, 101 L.Ed.2d 948 (1988))."'Before the effective date of Rule 404(b) January 1, 1996--the exclusionary rule was explained and followed by the Al......
  • Hodges v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 30 Marzo 2001
    ...by the record. Nicks v. State, 521 So.2d 1018, 1023 (Ala. Cr.App.1987), aff'd, 521 So.2d 1035 (Ala.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S.Ct. 2916, 101 L.Ed.2d 948 (1988)." Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 825-26 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). In Smith, we upheld the prosecutor's reference to the defend......
  • Centobie v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 31 Agosto 2001
    ...(Ala.Cr.App.1993). In Nicks v. State, 521 So.2d 1018 (Ala.Cr. App.1987), aff'd, 521 So.2d 1035 (Ala.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S.Ct. 2916, 101 L.Ed.2d 948 (1988), this court discussed the exceptions to the general exclusionary "`Numerous Alabama cases list the exceptions to the gen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 books & journal articles
  • Jury Selection and Voir Dire
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2014 Contents
    • 17 Agosto 2014
    ...a challenge to the array to be made before the panel is qualified. Jackson v. State, 745 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), cert. denied , 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S.Ct. 2916, 101 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1988); Callaway, supra . In order to prevail on a challenge to the array, a party must establish harm, i......
  • Jury Selection and Voir Dire
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2020 Contents
    • 16 Agosto 2020
    ...a challenge to the array to be made before the panel is qualified. Jackson v. State, 745 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), cert. denied , 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S.Ct. 2916, 101 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1988); Callaway, supra . In order to prevail on a challenge to the array, a party must establish harm, i......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Forms. Volume II - 2014 Contents
    • 12 Agosto 2014
    ...S.W.3d 579 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2001, pets. ref’d ), §16:42, Form 12-24 Jackson v. State , 745 S.W.2d 4 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988), cert. den., 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S. Ct. 2916, 101 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1988), §14:04 Jackson v. State , 992 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App. 1999), §§12:131, 13:201, 15:150 Jacobs v. S......
  • Jury Selection and Voir Dire
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2015 Contents
    • 17 Agosto 2015
    ...a challenge to the array to be made before the panel is qualified. Jackson v. State, 745 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), cert. denied , 487 U.S. 1241, 108 S.Ct. 2916, 101 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1988); Callaway, supra . In order to prevail on a challenge to the array, a party must establish harm, i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT