State of Connecticut v. Russell Peeler. — Zarella, J., Dissenting

Summary

This dissent argues that the court should overrule its recent constitutional decision invalidating Connecticut's death penalty because that decision was wrong, produced uncertainty, usurped legislative authority, and generated no meaningful reliance interests. It proposes a four-step framework for reconsidering erroneous precedent: determine the prior decision's merits, assess reliance interests, assess the costs of perpetuating error, and balance the benefits against those costs. The dissent concludes that overruling the prior decision would strengthen rather than undermine the court's legitimacy by restoring fidelity to the constitution and an objective rule of law. Justice Espinosa, dissenting, likewise would overrule the precedent as clearly wrong; Chief Justice Rogers and Justices Robinson and Palmer, concurring, would preserve it based principally on stare decisis, institutional legitimacy, and stability.