Weeks, Lonnie v. Angelone, Dir. of VA Dept. of Corrections (01/19/2000)

By: Sharna Marcus, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Whether the Constitution is violated when a trial judge directs a capital jurys attention to a specific paragraph of a constitutionally sufficient instruction in response to a question regarding the proper consideration of mitigating circumstances.

Brief

It is 5:15 p.m. on Sept. 1, 1999. Lonnie Weeks, Jr., 27, eats oven-fried chicken, rice pilaf, cucumber and onion salad, and bread and margarine.

It is to be his last meal.

The clock strikes 7 p.m. In two hours, Weeks will die by lethal injection for the 1993 murder of Virginia State Police Trooper Jose M. Cavazos.

But the death sentence is not carried out.

A few minutes after 7 p.m. the U.S. Supreme Court granted Weeks certiorari, stayed Weeks' execution and allowed him to proceed in forma pauperis.

Weeks life was saved momentarily by a question of law over a judges instructions to a jury, and the jurys misunderstanding of those instructions.

""If you find from the evidence that the Commonwealth has proved beyond a reasonable doubt either of the two alternatives, and as to that alternative you are unanimous, then you may fix the punishment of the defendant at death or if you believe from all the evidence that the death penalty is not justified, then you shall fix the punishment of the defendant at life imprisonment.""

Those were the instructions the trial judge gave to the Virginia jury that had convicted Weeks of murdering a state trooper. The jurors were to decide whether or not to sentence Weeks to death.

The jurors deliberated. Only they didn't quite understand the instructions, and asked if it was ""their duty to issue the death penalty if they found that Weeks was guilty of one of the aggravating factors, or whether they must decide whether or not to issue a death sentence even after finding that one of the aggravating factors has been met.""

During the break in deliberations, Weeks' attorney argued that the judge should instruct the jury that it could decline the death penalty if it found at least one aggravating factor. Instead, the judge told the jury to reread the instructions.

The instructions read ""may fix the punishment of the defendant at death,"" but the jury wrongly read they were required to give Weeks the death penalty if it found aggravating factors. The jurors found the nature of the crime aggravating in itself and sentenced Weeks to die October 21, 1993.

In appealing, Weeks argued, among other things, that the court violated his 8th and 14th amendment rights.

On direct appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld Weeks' conviction and death sentence. Subsequently, Weeks exhausted his state habeas remedies and sought habeas relief in federal court.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals both ruled that Weeks had failed to make ""a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right."" Both dismissed his federal habeas petition.

On Jan. 19, 2000, a divided U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, holding that no constitutional right is violated when a trial judge directs a jury's attention during a death penalty hearing to a specific paragraph of an instruction in response to a question regarding the proper consideration of mitigating evidence.

Writing for a 5-4 majority of Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O' Connor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist stressed that the jury in Weeks' case was adequately instructed, and the trial judge responded to the jurys question by directing its attention to the precise paragraph of the constitutionally adequate instruction that answered its inquiry. The constitution requires nothing more, Rehnquist wrote.

Justice John Paul Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter joined.