home

Supreme Court Refuses to Reject Victim Impact Videos in Death Cases

Very little is more prejudicial in the penalty phase of a death case than a video of the victim's life set to music. Juries are instructed to base their decisions on reason rather than emotion, and then view a video, on a larger than life screen, depicting images of the victim and events in his or her life, as prepared by their family, set to music.

Today, the Supreme Court refused to reject the practice in two cases.

The order Monday comes in two California cases in which jurors were shown video montages of the victims' lives, in one instance set to music by Enya.

Three justices disagreed with the ruling: Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. Justice Stevens' statement is here (pdf.)

"The videos added nothing relevant to the jury's deliberations and invited a verdict based on sentiment, rather than reasoned judgment," Stevens said.

You can watch one of the videos here.

< 5,000 AZ DUI Cases Could Be Tossed | Obama Plans to Move Gitmo Terror Trials to Criminal Courts >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    No, they didn't (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:30:09 AM EST
    The Supreme Court did not "uphold" the practice.  They denied cert which has no precedential value whatsoever.  These particular cases stand, but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court has validated it.

    Good point (none / 0) (#2)
    by TChris on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 10:36:55 AM EST
    and just as well the Supremes didn't take the case since they probably would have upheld the videos by a 6-3 (or at best 5-4) vote. Victim impact videos are just theater disguised as evidence, designed to manipulate jurors by inducing fuzzy warm feelings about the victim.  Should punishment depend upon how likable the victim was?  I wonder how courts would feel about defense videos showing what a jerk the victim was.

    Parent
    Thanks, I'll make that clear (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 11:00:05 AM EST
    But the effect is the same in my mind, they didn't invalidate it.

    Parent
    the denial of cert provides the green light (none / 0) (#4)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 11:03:46 AM EST
    to victim impact statements in all cases, I fear.  I cannot imagine a video clip set to music of the victim's life and the impact on loved ones.  This is horrible.  

    Parent
    I agree with this (none / 0) (#6)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 01:09:13 PM EST
    I've always been queasy about the role of victims' statements in sentencing. I recently read about a particularly hideous case in Texas that involved the brutal killing of a young girl and the dismemberment of her body. Yes, absolutely horrible in every way. But as sympathetic as I was to the family, and appalled by the murderer, I was taken aback to hear that as part of the sentencing trial, the victim's mother was allowed to deliver a statement to the murderer. In it she told him she hoped he burned in  hell and suffered agonies of remorse his whole life for what he had done. I agreed with her 100% but that seemed an oddly vindictive place for such a statement. Perhaps at the end of the criminal trial, but not as part of sen