Sentencing outcomes, race, and victim impact evidence in california: A pre‐ and post‐payne comparison∗

This is a revised version of a manuscript presented at the annual meeting of the Western and Pacific Association of Criminal Justice Educators in Salt Lake City, Utah, in October 1994. The authors wish to acknowledge the research assistance of Roger Driedger of Death Penalty Focus and Penny O'Daniel at the California Department of Corrections, and the insightful editorial comments of Dr. Austin Turk, University of California, Riverside.

This paper examines the effect of victim impact evidence in capital‐murder jury trials in California since the United States Supreme Court decided Payne v. Tennessee in 1991. Pursuant to Payne, prosecutors can use victim impact evidence in capital‐murder cases to encourage sentencing juries to impose death as an alternative punishment to life in prison without the possibility of parole. We analyzed 151 capital cases occurring in thirty‐six counties in California between 1989 and 1994. Our findings show that the presentation of victim impact evidence increases the likelihood of receiving a death sentence for some crimes. Secondly, our findings show that victim impact evidence has greater consequences for cases involving Latino defendants, and in cases involving nonwhite defendants and victims.

Keywords:

• Capital trials
• victim statements
• Latinos
• race
• defendant/victim interaction

Notes

This is a revised version of a manuscript presented at the annual meeting of the Western and Pacific Association of Criminal Justice Educators in Salt Lake City, Utah, in October 1994. The authors wish to acknowledge the research assistance of Roger Driedger of Death Penalty Focus and Penny O'Daniel at the California Department of Corrections, and the insightful editorial comments of Dr. Austin Turk, University of California, Riverside.