State v. Santiago

Summary

Norcott and McDonald, concurring, joined the majority's conclusion that Connecticut's death penalty is unconstitutionally excessive and disproportionate but separately examined longstanding evidence of racial and ethnic disparities in capital charging and sentencing. They did not resolve whether those disparities violated the state constitution because the issue was not raised or briefed, but expressed grave doubt that a death-penalty system substantially affected by racial bias could survive constitutional scrutiny. They urged courts and legislative bodies to consider whether the federal standard requiring proof of purposeful discrimination provides adequate protection in capital cases.