throbber
1
`
`
`
` Cite as: 578 U. S. ____ (2016)
`
`BREYER, J., dissenting
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`LAMONDRE TUCKER v. LOUISIANA
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
`
`
`COURT OF LOUISIANA
`
`
` No. 15–946. Decided May 31, 2016
`
`
`The motion of Former Prosecutors for leave to file a brief
`
`as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Law and Politi-
`
` cal Science Scholars for leave to file a brief as amici curiae
`is granted. The motion of Charles Hamilton Houston
`Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School to
`file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The motion of
`
` Former Appellate Court Jurists for leave to file a brief as
`amici curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certio-
`rari is denied.
`JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG joins,
`dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
`Lamondre Tucker shot and killed his pregnant girl-
`
`friend in 2008. At the time of the murder, Tucker was 18
`
`years, 5 months, and 6 days old, cf. Roper v. Simmons, 543
`
`
`U. S. 551, 578 (2005) (“The Eighth and Fourteenth
`
`Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on
`offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes
`were committed”), and he had an IQ of 74, cf. Atkins v.
`
`Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 321 (2002) (execution of the in-
`tellectually disabled violates the Eighth Amendment).
`
`Tucker was sentenced to death in a Louisiana county
`(Caddo Parish) that imposes almost half the death sen-
`tences in Louisiana, even though it accounts for only 5% of
`that State’s population and 5% of its homicides. See Pet.
`for Cert. 18.
`Given these facts, Tucker may well have received the
`
`death penalty not because of the comparative egregious-
`ness of his crime, but because of an arbitrary feature of his
`
`

`
`2
`
`
`TUCKER v. LOUISIANA
`
`BREYER, J., dissenting
`
` case, namely, geography. See Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S.
`
`___, ___–___ (2015) (BREYER, J., dissenting) (slip op., at
`
`12–14). One could reasonably believe that if Tucker had
`committed the same crime but been tried and sentenced
`just across the Red River in, say, Bossier Parish, he would
`not now be on death row. See, e.g., Smith, The Geography
`
`of the Death Penalty and Its Ramifications, 92 B. U.
`L. Rev. 227, 233–235, 278, 281 (2012); Robertson, The
`Man Who Says Louisiana Should “Kill More,” N. Y. Times,
`July 8, 2015, p. A1 (“From 2010 to 2014, more people were
`sentenced to death per capita [in Caddo Parish] than in
`any other county in the United States, among counties
`with four or more death sentences in that time period”);
`see also Glossip, supra, at ___ (BREYER, J., dissenting)
`
`(slip op., at 12) (“[I]n 2012, just 59 counties (fewer than 2%
`of counties in the country) accounted for all death sen-
`tences imposed nationwide”).
`
`For this reason, and for the additional reasons set out in
`my opinion in Glossip, I would grant certiorari in this case
`to confront the first question presented, i.e., whether
`imposition of the death penalty constitutes cruel and
`unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Four-
`teenth Amendments.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket