Get Steven Spielberg on the Phone – I Need to Sentence Someone to Death

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to weigh in on what kinds of “victim impact” evidence is admissible in trials where jurors are deciding whether to impose the death penalty. The High Court refused to hear two appeals challenging the use of videos documenting victims’ lives and how their deaths have affected loved ones.  For example, in one case at issue, the victim’s mother narrated a 20-minute video set to the music of Enya, which included dozens of photos and video clips depicting the victim’s life.

The Court hasn’t opined on this subject since the 1991 case of Payne v. Tennessee, in which it held that testimony showing a crime’s impact on the victim’s relatives and other survivors was admissible in the sentencing phase of capital cases.  In Payne, the Court set forth vague guidelines, stating:  “in the event that evidence is introduced that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a mechanism for relief.”  The California Supreme Court has issued this advice:  trial judges should be “very cautious” when allowing such evidence, and “irrelevant background music” should not be used.

Some argue that video impact statements merely even the playing field for victims.  They claim that such evidence merely humanizes victims, and gives a voice to survivors who are uncomfortable testifying at trial in front of the defendant and others.

While victim impact videos definitely have the potential to elicit sympathy from jurors, they can also be unfairly prejudicial to defendants; further, they often serve no legitimate purpose.  Should the decision to impose the death penalty be based on reason rather than emotion?  If yes, do victim impact statements aid that purpose?

Justice Stevens warned that “when victim impact evidence is enhanced with music, photographs, or video footage, the risk of unfair prejudice quickly becomes overwhelming. While the video tributes at issue in these cases contained moving portrayals of the lives of the victims, their primary, if not sole, effect was to rouse jurors’ sympathy for the victims and increase jurors’ antipathy for the capital defendants.”  And as Justice Breyer stated:  “The videos added nothing relevant to the jury’s deliberations and invited a verdict based on sentiment, rather than reasoned judgment.”

Every state that imposes the death penalty allows victim impact evidence to be presented during the sentencing phase of murder trials; however, without uniform standards, courts across the nation will inevitably impose different standards — some allowing highly emotional videos set to music,and produced by Steven Spielberg; others permitting only bare-bones testimony.  A defendant’s punishment should not depend upon how likable the victim was or how skilled the filmmaker is.  The High Court should set clear standards so victims and defendants across the nation get an equal shot at justice.