Ronald Rompilla

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Ronald Rompilla today. The case will define how a state must approach the penalty phase of a trial and what a jury is entitled to know before sentencing a defendant to death. In Rompilla's case, the jury was not informed that, under Pennsylvania law, it could impose a sentence of life without parole. In Pennsylvania, the jury is apparently not entitled to know about the option of life without parole even if it asks. As such, Rompilla's jury could not be clear regarding the chances of Rompilla's release if it refused to impose death. If a jury is not aware of a life without parole option, it may assume that it must give him or her death in order to prevent future harm. In a way, it takes the choice away from the jury because it plays on their fear. This is especially key in Rompilla's case since the prosecution apparently implied that Rompilla would be a danger to society if he were ever released. Though it supposedly never directly stated that Rompilla would be a future danger, it implied it by concentrating on his past criminal history.

High Court Hears Pa. Death Row Appeal