Zant v. Stephens (1982)
- Docket
- 81-89
- Decided
- 1982-01-01
Summary
Question: Should the court grant habeas corpus to Stephens because one of the aggravating circumstances leading to his death sentence is now invalid? Conclusion: No. In a 7-2 decision, Justice John Paul Stephens wrote the majority opinion reversing the court of appeals. The Supreme Court held that where there are other valid aggravating circumstances to substantiate the death sentence, habeas relief is not available. The jury did not rely solely on the invalid factor in making its decision. Justice Byron R. White wrote a concurrence, stating that the sentence could stand on a line of cases where convictions are upheld if any of the counts are sustainable. Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote a concurrence emphasizing the application of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in capitol sentencing cases. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a dissent condemning capital punishment as cruel and unusual. He also felt the aggravating circumstance used in making the sentencing decision was constitutionally defective. Justice William J. Brennan joined in the dissent.