Will Death Row Defendants Lose The Right To Share Their Stories?

Last March marked the 20th anniversary of Wiggins v. Smith, a Supreme Court decision that requires defense lawyers in death penalty cases to thoroughly investigate a defendant's medical, educational, familial, social, and cultural background, as well as any prior incarceration. Failure to do so allows defendants to claim they were denied adequate representation, violating their constitutional rights. Given the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, there are concerns about a 2022 decision by Justice Clarence Thomas, who rejected an appeal from a man sentenced to death for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. His ruling indicated a disregard for previous Supreme Court precedents, that affirm the right of death penalty defendants to present mitigating evidence to seek mercy from juries, The Marshall Project reports. Today, the Supreme Court has shown a willingness to overturn established precedents in various areas, raising concerns about the future of mitigating factors in death penalty cases.

When Thomas ruled on the Boston Marathon bombing case, he dismissed the argument that the convicted bomber was manipulated by his brother, emphasizing the trial court's ruling on the lack of evidence for this claim. In a footnote, Thomas suggested that the Supreme Court had erred in supporting the use of mitigating factors, hinting at a potential shift. Lee Kovarsky, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said throughout his time on the bench, Thomas had been hostile to all sorts of the court’s rulings that placed limits on the death penalty. He said Thomas would be happy to “gut” the court’s prior rulings on mitigating evidence. Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, has also actively pushed for the Court to limit the weight given to mitigating evidence. Scheidegger contends that requiring extensive consideration of mitigating evidence without direct relevance to culpability can produce inconsistent results in sentencing. As the legal landscape evolves, many are watching closely for any cases that might prompt the Supreme Court to revisit the issue of mitigating factors in capital punishment.