Criminal Law
481 U.S. 279 (1987)
Study notes for McCleskey v. Kemp: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Statistical evidence of racial disparity does not suffice for proving equal protection violations without evidence of intentional discrimination.
McCleskey v. Kemp is a pivotal case that highlights the intersection of race and the death penalty in America. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of proving not only that racial disparities exist in capital sentencing, but also that such disparities are the result of intentional discrimination against the defendant in their individual case. The case illustrates the high burden of proof required for claims under the Equal Protection Clause and the 8th Amendment concerning racial bias, requiring evidence beyond merely statistical data.
A key point to consider is how the Court approached empirical evidence, specifically the study conducted by Professor David Baldus, which provided compelling statistical insights into racial disparities. However, the Court ultimately ruled that statistical evidence, without demonstrable proof of discriminatory intent regarding McCleskey's specific sentencing, does not constitute a violation of constitutional rights. This decision has sparked ongoing debate on the effectiveness and fairness of the criminal justice system, particularly regarding racial equity.
MCK - Must show Cause of Knowledgeable bias.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Batson v. Kentucky | Batson involved intentional discrimination in jury selection, which the Court defined as a clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause, unlike McCleskey which required proving intent in sentencing. |
| Furman v. Georgia | Furman struck down the death penalty based on arbitrary application, while McCleskey dealt with the burden of proving intentional discrimination in the context of a specific sentence. |
| Gregg v. Georgia | Gregg upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty with procedural safeguards, in contrast to McCleskey which focused on claims of racial bias affecting individual cases. |
Allowing statistical evidence alone to support claims of discrimination could undermine the integrity of the justice system, as it lacks the specificity of individual cases.
This ruling may perpetuate systemic racial biases in sentencing, as it sets a high bar for proving discrimination, possibly at the cost of justice for minorities.
This case often appears on exams in contexts discussing racial bias, the burden of proof in equal protection claims, and the role of statistical evidence in legal arguments.