Brown v. Payton
United States Supreme Court
544 U.S. 133, 125 S. Ct. 1432, 161 L. Ed. 2d 334 (2005)
William Payton (defendant) was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted murder. During the penalty phase of his trial, Payton’s attorneys hoped to present postcrime mitigation evidence showing that Payton’s new religious beliefs had improved his behavior. Under California law regarding jury instructions, factor (k) allowed jurors to consider all evidence that might mitigate the gravity of a crime. Payton’s attorneys asked the judge to make the jury instructions regarding factor (k) more explicit by mentioning that jurors could consider evidence about Payton’s character and background. The court agreed that factor (k) could include background and character evidence but refused to make the instructions more explicit. While instructing the jury, the prosecutors incorrectly told the jury that they were not allowed to consider mitigating evidence that occurred after the crime. The judge did not correct this misstatement. Payton was sentenced to death. On appeal to the California Supreme Court, Payton argued that the prosecutors violated his Eighth Amendment rights by making the jury believe that it could not consider postcrime mitigation evidence. The California Supreme Court applied Boyde v. California to the case and held that it was unlikely that Payton’s jury believed that it was not allowed under factor (k) jury to consider postcrime mitigation evidence. The court upheld Payton’s convictions and sentence. Payton filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The district court held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) did not apply to Payton’s case and granted his petition. An en banc court of appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of habeas relief, finding that factor (k) was unconstitutionally ambiguous and that the California Supreme Court unreasonably applied Boyde to Payton’s case by failing to hold that factor (k) was unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
Concurrence (Breyer, J.)
Concurrence (Scalia, J.)
Dissent (Souter, 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 724,000 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 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.