The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear a death row appeal from a Pennsylvania man who main­tains that jurors at his tri­al should have been told that they had the option of sen­tenc­ing him to life with­out parole instead of the death penal­ty. According to the brief filed on behalf of Ronald Rompilla, the jury asked sev­er­al ques­tions dur­ing his tri­al about Rompilla’s ​“future dan­ger­ous­ness,” yet were nev­er told that if sen­tenced to prison he would nev­er be eli­gi­ble for lat­er release. The jury then sen­tenced him to death. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3d Circuit ruled that jurors did not have to be giv­en a spe­cial instruc­tion. Rompilla was con­vict­ed of mur­der dur­ing a 1988 rob­bery in Allentown.

Rompilla also alleges that his pub­lic defend­ers pre­sent­ed inad­e­quate evi­dence of his men­tal retar­da­tion and trau­mat­ic upbring­ing.

Most death penal­ty states offer life with­out parole, but only Pennsylvania and South Carolina have rou­tine­ly declined to tell jurors that a defen­dant will not be released if sent to prison, accord­ing to Rompilla’s brief. (Rompilla v. Beard, 04 – 5462, Associated Press, Sept. 28, 2004). See Life Without Parole; see also Supreme Court.

Citation Guide