## Facts

- Daniel Wilbur Gardner was convicted of first-degree murder in Florida.
- Florida used a bifurcated capital procedure with a separate sentencing hearing before a jury.
- The jury recommended a life sentence after finding mitigating circumstances outweighed aggravating circumstances.
- The trial judge ordered a presentence investigation report (PSI) and treated portions as “confidential,” withholding them from both the defense and the prosecution.
- The judge imposed a death sentence despite the jury’s recommendation, relying in part on the PSI to find an aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance.
- On direct review, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence without addressing the due process challenge to the confidential PSI and without examining the confidential material.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether due process is violated when a death sentence is imposed based, at least in part, on undisclosed presentence-report information that the defendant had no opportunity to deny or explain.
2. Whether capital sentencing and appellate review require a record that discloses the information and considerations motivating the death sentence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Florida Supreme Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- A majority agreed the death sentence could not stand because it was imposed, at least in part, on information Gardner had no opportunity to deny or explain.
- The Court distinguished prior approval of broader sentencing discretion involving undisclosed information in non-capital sentencing contexts.
- The Court rejected the State’s asserted justifications for secrecy (encouraging candor, avoiding delay, protecting rehabilitation-related evaluations, and reliance on judicial discretion) as insufficient in a death-penalty determination.
- The Court found appellate review inadequate where the reviewing court did not have access to the complete PSI considered by the sentencing judge.

## Legal Principles

- In capital cases, the sentencing process must satisfy due process requirements, reflecting the heightened need for reliability when the penalty is death.
- Due process is denied when a death sentence is based, even in part, on information the defendant had no chance to rebut or explain.
- Even if limited nondisclosure of presentence material could be permitted for good cause, the complete presentence report must be included in the record for appellate review in a capital case.
- Capital sentencing procedures must be administered consistently and in a manner that allows reviewing courts to evaluate the reasons for imposing death, reducing the risk of arbitrary imposition.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Florida violated due process by imposing the death penalty based in part on undisclosed presentence information that Gardner could not challenge and by affirming the sentence without a complete record for meaningful appellate review.


Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349 (1977)