IN THE FIFTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PARISH OF PEINE DE MORT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
No. _____

=================================

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN CLIENT, Defendant

=================================

OBJECTIONS TO THE STATE'S CENTRAL SENTENCING INSTRUCTION

In addition to his oral objections to the State's sentencing instructions, John Client objects, pursuant to the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1 of the Louisiana Constitution, to the following deficiencies in the central sentencing instruction, offered as instruction SP-1:
1. Paragraph Three (1st para. of Section A):
The Defendant objects to the language in this paragraph which requires the jury to find that mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating circumstances in order to return a sentence of life imprisonment. The burden of proof is on the state. It must be presumed that life, not death, is the appropriate punishment. It is unconstitutional to instruct a jury that "[w]hen one or more of the aggravating circumstances is found, death is presumed to be the proper sentence unless it or they are overridden by one or more of the mitigating circumstances provided." Jackson v. Dugger, 837 F.2d 1469, 1472 (11th Cir. 1988). The proposed instruction is even worse that the one condemned in Jackson, for, under the State's instruction, death is presumptively the appropriate punishment before the sentencing hearing even begins.
2. Aggravating Circumstances:
(a) The aggravating circumstance of "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" has been repeatedly condemned as violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution, Shell v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 1, 111 S. Ct. 313, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990); Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738, 110 S. Ct. 1441, 108 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1990); Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. ___, 112 S. Ct. 1130, 117 L. Ed. 2d 367 (1992), and as violative of Article 1, Sections 2 and 20 of the Louisiana Constitution if not narrowly construed. See State v. Munroe, 397 So. 2d 1258, 1274-75 (La. 1981) (disapproving of HAC even though murder was brutal because wounds were inflicted to kill, not maim); State v. Culberth, 390 So. 2d 847, 851 (La. 1980). Additionally, there is a problem with duplicity. Shell v. Mississippi (concurring opinion).
(b) The aggravating circumstance of eliminating witnesses cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore cannot be submitted to the jury consistent with State law, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution and Article 1 of the Louisiana Constitution.
3. Mitigating Circumstances:
The Defendant objects to the phrasing of the mitigating circumstances portion of S-1 on grounds that this instruction violates State law, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution and Article 1 of the Louisiana Constitution. This instruction fails to inform the jurors that their finding of mitigating circumstances is individual, not unanimous. McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 110 S. Ct. 1227, 108 L. Ed. 2d 369 (1990).
4. Instruction (Short "definition" of "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel")
The Defendant objects to this instruction as violative of State law, the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution and Article 1 of the Louisiana Constitution.
The Defendant makes such other objections orally as may be presented at the instructions conference in the sentencing phase of this case. Any such oral objection contends that the sentencing instructions violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution, Article 1 of the Louisiana Constitution, and State law.
B. The jury should be told what is going on before voir dire.
Interviews with jurors after capital trials reveal a genuine confusion with what is going on in the trial. Counsel should try to take care of this to a small degree by spending the necessary time in voir dire answering jurors' concerns--this will make you some friends among the jurors. However, counsel should also ask the trial judge to give the jurors something of an explanation of the manner in which the trial will proceed.
??

(..continued)