Weeks v. Angelone

Summary

The Court held that a trial judge did not violate the Constitution by answering a capital jury's question about its sentencing discretion through a reference to the precise paragraph of a constitutionally adequate instruction that answered the question. The instructions and surrounding circumstances did not establish a reasonable likelihood that the jury believed it could not give effect to mitigating evidence. The Court also held that 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) barred habeas relief and affirmed the Fourth Circuit's judgment. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer throughout and Justice Souter except as to Part I. The dissent argued that the jury's question demonstrated confusion that the judge's response failed to resolve, creating a reasonable likelihood that jurors mistakenly believed an aggravating circumstance required a death sentence.