“Judicious and Careful” Out the Window: Law vs. Practice in Capital Punishment

On September 24th 2024, the state of Missouri carried out the execution of Marcellus Williams in spite of numerous last ditch efforts from his legal team and pleas from the public to spare his life. The appeals put forth stressed developments in the case and evidence that cast severe doubt on whether Williams was guilty. The preeminence of Williams’ case on social media brought the issue of death penalty ethics to the forefront of the mainstream conscience. Williams is far from the only individual in recent history to be sentenced to death despite the capriciousness of his conviction. His case represents a broader topic worth examining: the inconsistencies between U.S. law and the utilization of the death penalty. Williams’ case, among others, arguably violated the “judicious and careful” standard established in Gregg v. Georgia, a preceding Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of the death penalty. Beyond potential precedent violations, these contemporary cases of capital punishment usage call into question whether the current federal law on death penalty utilization actually dispenses justice.

Because of the contentious and complicated nature of capital punishment usage, the Supreme Court has a lengthy history of decisions regarding the death penalty. One major and relevant Court case in contextualizing this issue is Furman v. Georgia, a decision that refined death penalty law. Furman’s majority ruled that arbitrary and disproportionate impositions of the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The holding emphasizes that capricious uses of the death penalty can often create discriminatory results, therefore violating both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. However, Furman did not rule that death penalty usage was unconstitutional. Rather, it pressed states to re-examine their statutes for capital offenses. This caveat led previously convicted defendants in the states of Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Texas to later appeal their death sentences in the case Gregg v. Georgia, arguing that imposition of capital punishment ran counter to human dignity, constituting cruel and unusual punishment. However, the majority decision in this case held that modifications made to the death penalty statutes in these states post-Furman provided enough safeguards to make use of the death penalty both judicious and constitutional. The Court argued that there was no evidence that the general use of the death penalty offended human dignity, failed to deter crime, or violated the Eighth Amendment, asserting that certain severe crimes warranted the use of capital punishment. Moreover, the ruling stressed that death penalty cases should have appellate review processes to ensure that they are truly judicious, even going so far as to mandate appeals in all states:

Where the sentencing authority is required to specify the factors it relied upon in reaching its decision, the further safeguard of meaningful appellate review is available to ensure that death sentences are not imposed capriciously or in a freakish manner.

The Court acknowledges that the finality of cases resolved with capital punishment warrants further procedural jurisdiction than would typically ensue in a standard criminal trial. As a result, a higher burden of proof and substantial appeals process should occur prior to the imposition of the death penalty. However, cases subsequent to Gregg have deviated from this standard, often leading to “freakish” death penalty sentences.

Marcellus Williams’ case and the subsequent actions of the Missouri state government exemplify the often capricious arbitration of the death penalty. In 2001 Williams was convicted for the murder of former Missouri reporter Felicia Anne Gayle; she was found stabbed to death in her home over forty times. The prosecution relied almost exclusively on two witness testimonies, one of them being Williams’ former girlfriend, Laura Asaro, who claimed that Williams confessed to having committed the murder. Though Williams was convicted and sentenced to capital punishment, upon further examination, numerous inconsistencies began to arise. The claims of the two witness testimonies often failed to align with crime scene evidence. For instance, while Asaro claimed that Williams had scratches on his neck from a supposed altercation with the victim, Williams’ DNA was not found under Gayle’s fingernails. Moreover, both witnesses had significant incentives to testify. Asaro, for instance, agreed to testify only after the police had threatened her with charges of withholding evidence. Furthermore, the process of jury selection in Williams’ trial was plagued with evident racial discrimination. Prosecutors on the case used their peremptory challenges to strike six out of the seven Black prospective jurors without providing any explanation.

Despite the unstable grounds of Williams’ conviction, the unreliability of the evidence, and the pending appeals, the state government declined to grant clemency or stay Williams’ execution. Though Gregg v. Georgia emphasizes a substantial and careful appeals process, this was absent in Williams’ case. The outright rejection of Williams’ last three appeals and the further responses of the state display that Williams’ execution was in fact capricious. Regarding the calls to delay the execution, Missouri Governor Mike Parson claimed it was “time to move forward,” ignoring the findings of the board of inquiry. This illuminates how eagerness to proceed can create large oversights, preventing a judicious and careful examination of death penalty cases as emphasized in Gregg. This is especially pertinent when valid concerns of the usage of discriminatory practices arise, as occurred during Williams’ trial. The modifications urged by the Supreme Court in the Furman decision specifically emphasize safeguards against racial discrimination. However, these safeguards failed to protect Williams.

Unfortunately, Marcellus Williams’ case is not unique. Individuals on death row tend to fall within the cracks of our legal system despite the irrevocable nature of their punishments. Government efforts to “move forward” and speed run the legal process often deprive individuals on death row of the high judicial scrutiny and carefulness that Gregg v. Georgia identifies as being essential. The frequency of this phenomenon begs the question of whether Gregg effectively protects innocent individuals from discriminatory practices that end in state-sanctioned executions. Re-evaluation of the precedent in place, and the potential eradication of the death penalty, would ultimately prevent the capital murder of wrongly convicted individuals. The Court will hear oral arguments in early October on another controversial death penalty case involving Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma man sentenced to death despite unreliable and precarious evidence. Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, the outcome of the case will form a verdict on the future of the death penalty and justice in the United States.

Sinclair Harris is a sophomore concentrating in History and International & Public Affairs. She is a blog staff writer for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review. She can be reached at sinclair_harrsi@brown.edu.

Yani Ince is a senior concentrating in History and Political Science. She is a blog editor for the Brown Undergraduate Law Review. She can be reached at ianthe_ince@brown.edu.