Skip to main content
Correcting Deadly Confusion: Responding to Jury Inquiries in Capital Cases
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
  • Stephen P. Garvey, Cornell Law School
  • Sheri Lynn Johnson, Cornell Law School
  • Paul Marcus
Document Type
Publication Date
  • Capital punishment,
  • Death penalty,
  • Capital jurors,
  • Capital jury instructions,
  • Weeks v. Angelone,
  • Mandatory sentencing,
  • Aggravating factors,
  • Capital Jury Project,
  • CJP,
  • Simmons v. South Carolina
In Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225 (2000), the members of the capital sentencing jury asked for clarification of the jury instructions on the essential question of whether they were required to sentence Weeks to death upon the finding of certain aggravating factors. The judge merely informed the jurors to reread the instruction. The jurors returned with a death penalty sentence. The Supreme Court held that these jurors likely understood the instructions and at most Weeks had shown a slight possibility that the jurors believed they were precluded from considering mitigating evidence. However, the results of a mock jury study conducted by the authors strongly suggest that the Supreme Court's conclusion was incorrect. In fact, many jurors receiving the subject instruction do believe that they cannot weigh mitigating evidence. The Supreme Court's finding that the jurors in Weeks' trial understood the sentencing instruction was based on mere instinct and was likely incorrect.
Publication Citation
Published in: Cornell Law Review, vol. 85, no. 3 (March 2000).
Citation Information
Stephen P. Garvey, Sheri Lynn Johnson and Paul Marcus. "Correcting Deadly Confusion: Responding to Jury Inquiries in Capital Cases" (2000)
Available at: