Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

McCleskey v. Kemp

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEighth AmendmentCapital PunishmentEqual ProtectionRace Discriminationdeath penaltycapital sentencingGeorgia statute

Facts

McCleskey was sentenced to death in Georgia for murder committed during a planned robbery, a crime for which the death penalty is constitutionally permissible. Georgia's capital scheme, previously upheld in Gregg, narrows death eligibility through statutory aggravating circumstances, allows broad mitigating evidence, and provides automatic review by the Georgia Supreme Court. McCleskey relied on the Baldus study, which at most indicated a discrepancy in sentencing that appeared to correlate with race, especially the race of the victim. Even Professor Baldus did not contend that the statistics proved race entered any particular capital sentencing decision or that race was a factor in McCleskey's own case.

Issue

Whether McCleskey's death sentence violated the Eighth Amendment because statistical evidence suggested racial disparities in Georgia capital sentencing, and whether the same statistics established an Equal Protection violation. More specifically, the question was whether the Baldus study demonstrated a constitutionally significant risk of racial bias or otherwise showed unconstitutional application of Georgia's capital punishment system in McCleskey's case.

Rule

Where a capital sentencing system contains constitutionally adequate safeguards that channel the sentencer's discretion and permit individualized consideration, a defendant cannot establish an Eighth Amendment violation merely by showing a statistical disparity that correlates with race. Nor does such a study establish an Equal Protection violation absent proof of discriminatory purpose in the defendant's own case. The Constitution does not require a State to eliminate every demonstrable disparity correlating with a potentially irrelevant factor in order to operate a capital punishment system.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Omar Reed is sentenced to death in Alabama for an intentional murder committed during an armed burglary. Alabama's capital scheme requires a separate penalty phase, eligibility based on a statutory aggravating circumstance proved beyond a reasonable doubt, admission of any relevant mitigating evidence, and automatic review by the state supreme court. Reed offers a statewide regression study showing that defendants convicted of killing white victims receive death sentences more often than defendants convicted of killing Black victims, but he has no evidence that race affected any actor in his own prosecution.

Under the Supreme Court's majority reasoning, what is Reed's strongest constitutional result on his Eighth Amendment claim?

Explanation. The majority held that, where a capital sentencing system has constitutionally adequate safeguards that narrow death eligibility, allow consideration of all relevant mitigation, and provide review against arbitrariness, a defendant cannot establish an Eighth Amendment violation merely by showing a statistical disparity that correlates with race. The Court refused to treat such statistics, without more, as proof of a constitutionally significant risk in the defendant's own case.