throbber
1
`
`
`
` Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)
`
` SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`CHRISTOPHER EUGENE BROOKS v. ALABAMA
`ON APPLICATION FOR STAY AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF
`
`
`CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
`
`
`No. 15–7786 (15A755) (Decided January 21, 2016)]
`
`
`
`
`The application for stay of execution of sentence of death
`
`
`presented to JUSTICE THOMAS and by him referred to
`the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is
`denied.
` JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG
`
`joins, concurring in the denial of certiorari.
`This Court’s opinion upholding Alabama’s capital sen-
`
`tencing scheme was based on Hildwin v. Florida, 490 U. S.
`
`
`638 (1989) (per curiam), and Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.
`S. 447 (1984), two decisions we recently overruled in Hurst
`
`v. Florida, 577 U. S. ___ (2016). See Harris v. Alabama,
`513 U. S. 504 (1995). I nonetheless vote to deny certiorari
`in this particular case because I believe procedural obsta-
`cles would have prevented us from granting relief.
`
`
`
`
`

`
`2
`
`
`
` BROOKS v. ALABAMA
`
`BREYER, J., dissenting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JUSTICE BREYER, dissenting from denial of application
`
`for stay of execution and petition for certiorari.
`
`Christopher Eugene Brooks was sentenced to death in
`accordance with Alabama’s procedures, which allow a jury
`to render an “advisory verdict” that “is not binding on the
`court.” Ala. Code §13A–5–47(e) (2006). For the reasons
`
`explained in my opinions concurring in the judgment in
`
`
`Hurst v. Florida, ante, at 1, and Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S.
`
`584, 613–619 (2002), and my dissenting opinion in Schriro
`v. Summerlin, 542 U. S. 348, 358–366 (2004), I dissent
`from the order of the Court to deny the application for stay
`of execution and the petition for a writ of certiorari.
`
`Moreover, we have recognized that Alabama’s sentenc-
`ing scheme is “much like” and “based on Florida’s sentenc-
`ing scheme.” Harris v. Alabama, 513 U. S. 504, 508
`(1995). Florida’s scheme is unconstitutional. See Hurst,
`ante, at 1 (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment). The
`
`unfairness inherent in treating this case differently from
`others which used similarly unconstitutional procedures
`only underscores the need to reconsider the validity of
`capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment. See
` Glossip v. Gross, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (BREYER, J.,
`
`
`dissenting) (slip op., at 1–2). I respectfully dissent.

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

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.

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

Try refreshing this document from the court, or go back to the docket to see other documents.

We are unable to display this document.

Go back to the docket to see more.