Supreme Court: Kentucky Death Sentence May Be Flawed, But Not 'Unreasonable'

On April 23 the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death sentence of Kentucky inmate Robert Woodall, reversing an earlier ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. At Woodall’s trial, his attorney asked the judge to instruct the jury not to draw any negative inference from the fact that Woodall had not testified in the sentencing phase. The judge refused to give the instruction. The 6th Circuit held that the failure to instruct the jury was a violation of Woodall’s right to remain silent. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Court in White v. Woodall, did not say the Kentucky judge acted properly, but only that federal courts must give exceptional deference to state courts, only overturning them when they act “unreasonably.” In a dissent joined by two other Justices, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that “The ‘normal rule’ is that Fifth Amendment protections (about the right to remain silent) apply during trial and sentencing.”

(S. Hanahel, “Court Won’t Overturn Death Sentence for Ky. Man,” Associated Press, April 23, 2014; White v. Woodall, No. 12–794, U.S. (April 23, 2014)). See U.S. Supreme Court and Arbitrariness.