## Facts

- Warren McCleskey, a Black defendant, was convicted in Georgia of armed robbery and murder for killing a white police officer during a robbery of the Dixie Furniture Store in Atlanta.
- A Georgia jury sentenced McCleskey to death under Georgia’s capital sentencing scheme, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed; state post-conviction relief was denied.
- McCleskey filed a federal habeas petition asserting, among other claims:
  - the Georgia death-penalty system was racially discriminatory and arbitrary, relying on the Baldus statistical study;
  - the prosecution failed to disclose a promise of favorable treatment to a key witness (a Giglio claim);
  - ineffective assistance of counsel;
  - unconstitutional burden-shifting jury instructions under Sandstrom;
  - unconstitutional exclusion of jurors opposed to the death penalty (“death-scrupled” jurors).
- After an evidentiary hearing focused on the Baldus study, the district court rejected the systemic discrimination challenge but granted habeas relief on the Giglio nondisclosure claim.
- The State appealed the grant of relief; McCleskey cross-appealed the denial of relief on the remaining claims. The Eleventh Circuit heard the case en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether statistical evidence (the Baldus study) proved Georgia’s capital sentencing was administered in a racially discriminatory, arbitrary, or capricious manner in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Whether alleged nondisclosure of a promise of favorable treatment to a state witness violated Giglio and required habeas relief.
3. Whether McCleskey was denied effective assistance of counsel.
4. Whether the jury instructions violated due process under Sandstrom by creating an impermissible presumption regarding intent.
5. Whether excluding “death-scrupled” jurors violated the right to an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community.

## Decision

- The en banc court affirmed the district court’s rejection of the Baldus-based Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment challenge, holding the statistical evidence was insufficient to establish constitutional invalidity in Georgia’s death-sentencing process.
- The court reversed the district court’s grant of habeas relief on the Giglio claim, concluding the asserted nondisclosure did not justify vacating the conviction or sentence.
- The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief on the ineffective-assistance, Sandstrom, and death-qualification/fair-cross-section claims.
- The court ordered that the habeas petition be denied in its entirety, leaving the conviction and death sentence in place.

## Legal Principles

- Equal Protection: Statistical disparities, without proof that decisionmakers in the defendant’s own case acted with discriminatory purpose, do not establish an equal-protection violation.
- Eighth Amendment: Statistical evidence of disparities, standing alone, may be insufficient to show a constitutionally intolerable level of arbitrariness or caprice in a capital sentencing system.
- Giglio: Relief requires proof of nondisclosure of impeachment evidence and materiality; nondisclosure is not grounds for relief absent a reasonable probability of a different outcome.
- Ineffective assistance: Habeas relief is unavailable absent constitutionally deficient performance and resulting prejudice under the governing two-part test.
- Death-qualification: Excluding prospective jurors whose views on capital punishment would substantially impair their ability to follow the law does not, by itself, violate the fair-cross-section requirement.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit en banc held that the Baldus statistical study did not prove unconstitutional racial discrimination or arbitrariness in Georgia capital sentencing, and it rejected the asserted Giglio nondisclosure and other trial-related claims, directing denial of federal habeas relief and leaving the death judgment intact.


McCleskey v. Kemp, 753 F.2d 877 (11th Cir. 1985) (en banc)