## Facts

- Sandra Lockett served as the getaway driver in a pawnshop robbery in which the owner was killed by another participant.
- Ohio law required a death sentence upon conviction of aggravated murder with specified aggravating circumstances unless the sentencer found at least one of three enumerated mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The statute directed the sentencing judge to consider the offense and the offender’s history and character but authorized a life sentence only if one of the three listed mitigating circumstances was proven.
- Lockett was convicted of aggravated murder with specifications including that the killing occurred to avoid detection and occurred during an aggravated robbery.
- Because Lockett did not fit within any of the three mitigating categories, the statute required the judge to impose the death penalty.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit a capital sentencing scheme that restricts the sentencer to considering only specified mitigating factors before imposing a mandatory death sentence.
2. Whether the prosecutor’s closing argument characterizing the State’s evidence as “unrefuted” and “uncontradicted” impermissibly commented on Lockett’s failure to testify.
3. Whether excluding for cause prospective jurors whose opposition to capital punishment would prevent them from following the law violated Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment jury-selection requirements.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed Lockett’s conviction but reversed the judgment insofar as it upheld the death sentence and remanded.
- A plurality concluded that Ohio’s statute was unconstitutional because it limited the range of mitigating circumstances the sentencer could consider.
- The Court rejected Lockett’s claims regarding the prosecutor’s remarks, treating them as commentary on the state of the evidence in context rather than an improper comment on her silence.
- The Court upheld the removal for cause of jurors who made clear they could not follow the law due to their views against the death penalty.

## Legal Principles

- In capital cases, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments generally require that the sentencer not be precluded from considering, as mitigation, any aspect of the defendant’s character or record and any circumstances of the offense offered as a basis for a sentence less than death.
- A death-penalty scheme that effectively makes death mandatory unless the defendant proves one of a closed list of mitigating circumstances is unconstitutional if it prevents consideration and effectuation of other relevant mitigating evidence.
- Prosecutorial argument describing the evidence as unrebutted does not necessarily violate the Fifth Amendment when, in context, it is framed as commentary on the evidentiary record rather than the defendant’s choice not to testify.
- Prospective jurors may be removed for cause when their views on capital punishment would prevent or substantially impair their ability to follow the court’s instructions and apply the law.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Ohio’s capital sentencing statute was invalid to the extent it confined mitigation to three specified factors and thereby prevented a sentencer from giving effect to other relevant mitigating evidence; Lockett’s conviction was left intact, but her death sentence could not stand under that scheme.


Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978)