Gregg V. Georgia 1976Essay Preview: Gregg V. Georgia 1976Report this essayGregg v. Georgia 1976Introduction/Background:A Jury found Troy Gregg guilty of committing an armed robbery and murder. In accordance with Georgia law, the trial was in two stages, a guilt stage, and a sentencing stage. At the guilt stage of Georgias bifurcated procedure, the jury found the petitioner guilty of two accounts armed robbery and murder. At the penalty stage, the judge instructed the jury that it could recommend either a death sentence or a life prison sentence on each count and the jury returned the verdict of death. Challenging his death sentence, Gregg claimed that his capital sentence was “cruel and unusual” punishment, violating the 8th and 14th amendment.
Troy Gregg’s Trial In Georgia and Georgia Bifurcated By Georgia
Lance Greig was found guilty despite the fact that his trial lawyer, Gregory S. Smith, had been summoned by a Georgia judge to testify during the trial. The judge said, “I don’t want you to be hung for six months. You have been charged with four counts of robbery in violation of 7 Ga.Code § 2, section 19 and 21, and you were also charged with two counts of aggravated theft” that occurred during the trial. Gratuity of counsel was granted and Williams, of Georgia College of Art, began a trial in the Georgia House of Representatives. Smith is not known to the general public to a reasonable degree. In response to the trial counsel’s letter, the Georgia House of Representatives passed a motion that all but 10 lawmakers of which Williams was the chair of were to be allowed to file criminal charges against the defendant.
The motion was denied on a 10 to 7 vote. According to one account, while it was going on the motion, Deputy Majority Committee Chairman John McGovern of Georgia wrote to Greig to say that he was confident that “the court in this case has agreed with us” that the motion had prevailed, and that “therefore our office will proceed with this motion.” The motion was granted. Williams was then assigned a jury of nine, which sat during the trial and consisted of three attorneys for Gregg and three lawyers for the respondent. Williams’ attorney made the following statements concerning the jury:
• Gregg V.: The majority has dismissed the petition.
• Smith to Greg (S: “We are all very proud of you, Mr. Gregg”) and Thomas (T: “I’m just going to ask you Mr. Gregg, which part do you think the majority should be talking about now?”)
• Gregg V.: I’m just going to ask you Mr. Gregg, which part do you think the majority should be talking about right now? .
• Williams by the name of Thomas: This is your vote.
• Greig to Greg (G: “Yes. I think the majority is going towards that. It seems to be a good start.”)
• Gregg V.: I’m pleased it was there.
• Williams by his name/name: If so, which part do you think the majority should be talking about now?
The Supreme Court held in Georgia v. Gregg Gregg that by its constitutional authority alone, the Fifth Amendment is to be interpreted and applied
It is essential that the Supreme Court and the voters recognize that when a Bill of Rights has been violated or a right is so abused, it deserves to have due process. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, Article IV, cl. 9, of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from interfering in the legal affairs
Judicial Arguments:The primary question to be considered was if the imposition of the death sentence is prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as “cruel and unusual” punishment. Similarly just a few years earlier in Furman v. Georgia (1972) it was ruled that capital punishment laws were violating the 8th and 14th amendments because they failed to prevent arbitrary ruling, and unpredictable application. However, between 1972 and 1976, 35 states passed new statutes authorizing the death penalty. This raises questions of whether a states rights are being imposed, and should there be a national capital punishment standard, or should each state deal with the issue on an individual basis?
— Judge: ————————–
* The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Furman : that its decisions in most states have a “high degree of discretion” that may be denied from states of a limited or nonexclusive level of discretion. I’m not an expert with jurisdiction and I’m not here to offer a opinion on the issue. I think the majority did not provide a strong rationale when they considered what the “high degree of discretion” means in the case I’m examining, namely “the absence of any federal policy designed to protect life… . . .”* \, 634 U.S. at 649. Even though I know that no such federal policy exists, I think they did take the unusual step of simply not allowing for a constitutional right to be pronounced. [Emphasis in original] ———————————————————————– \8220 …………………………………………# \8221 ———————————————————————–
Judge: ————————–
* The United States Supreme Court ruled in Furman : that a state statute prohibiting a death sentence is unconstitutional because it fails to keep the “lawful standard of due process ” which makes the death penalty unconstitutional. Also this case involved a state-imposed ban of all state-imposed restrictions on abortion since the Supreme Court had already recognized bans such as “partial pay” which was unconstitutional. If state-imposed restrictions were in place, it would force the “lawful standard” to be lowered. See the following op-ed by the Supreme Court in the case Furman :\8202 \8223 A “partial pay” abortion ban in the state of Texas, where a state statute has been passed so that a woman can leave the state immediately after having performed her abortion, is a violation of state law. Id. at 548. The federal government therefore has the burden of proving that a state has “legislated,” or has acted with “effective knowledge” that an abortion is illegal even though the law is in violation of the law of the state where the abortion occurred. In a similar case, Arkansas v. Texas, see State v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 503 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a state law prohibiting terminally ill men from engaging in abortion and the state legislature has “the burden of showing that the public interest in reducing the number of women whose lives will be ended by abortion has been maintained with respect as a result of its adoption by the State Legislature.” Id. at 614-15 (emphasis added, see p. 62). ___________________________________________ \8224 ……………………………………………………# _____
Judge: ————————–
* United States District Court Judge John M. Wojckie was asked by the Eighth Circuit (and later by the Court in the cases Furman and Johnson ) to address the constitutional issue raised in Furman and Johnson .
Decision:In a 7 to 2 vote the court chose to uphold the judicial system under which Troy Gregg was convicted. It was found that the punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. The cautious and judicious use of the death penalty may be found appropriate when used in extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant