From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Barclay v. Florida
United States Supreme Court
463 U.S. 939, 103 S. Ct. 3418, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1134 (1983)
Elwood Barclay (defendant) was a member of the Black Liberation Army. The Black Liberation Army intended to start a race war. On the day of the murder for which Barclay was convicted, Barclay and several other members sought to kill a White person to further their intention to cause a race war. The group found Stephen Orlando, who had been hitch-hiking. They took Orlando to an isolated location. Barclay repeatedly stabbed Orlando. Fellow member, Dougan shot Orlando twice in the head and killed him. Dougan left a note on Orlando’s body that consisted of inflammatory language and a gloating description of the murder. A jury convicted Barclay and Dougan of first-degree murder. A sentencing hearing was held. The jury advised a death sentence for Dougan and life imprisonment for Barclay. The judge rejected the life-imprisonment advisement and imposed death sentences on both men. Two of the other men involved were convicted of second-degree murder. Another man pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. The trial judge found a number of aggravating circumstances to be present for Barclay. The trial judge did not find any mitigating circumstances and determined that Barclay’s significant criminal record was an aggravating circumstance and not a mitigating circumstance. The trial judge also found that Barclay’s breaking-and-entering conviction was an aggravating factor despite the lack of any indication it involved violence or the threat of violence. The Florida Supreme Court automatically reviewed Barclay’s death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court conducted a harmless-error analysis of the sentencing order. Despite the trial court judge’s improper consideration of two improper aggravating circumstances (Barclay’s criminal record and the breaking-and-entering conviction could not be considered aggravating factors under state law), the Florida Supreme Court held that such improper consideration was harmless. Barclay appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Marshall, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 620,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.