In May of 1984, John Booth and Willie Reid entered the home of Irvin and Rose Bronstein for the purpose of stealing money to buy heroin. Booth, who lived only three houses away in the same neighborhood, was aware that the Bronstein’s could identify him, so he and Reid stabbed the elderly couple to death. He was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. After the trial, Booth opted to let the jury determine his sentence instead of the judge.
Before the sentencing phase began, the Maryland State Division of Parole and Probation presented a report that was required by state statute. Information required in the report included a victim impact statements that described the effect of the crime on the victims and the victims' family. The victim impact statement can be either read to the jury, or the family members can offer their views orally by appearing before the court. In this case, the
…show more content…
On appeal, the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the victim impact statement serves an important interest by informing the sentence of the full measure of harm caused by the crime. Booth again appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where the lower court's sentencing, but not the conviction, was vacated and remanded back for further proceedings.
In presenting arguments before the Supreme Court, the chief attorney for Booth argued that when making a decision about the death penalty, juries should only consider two criteria: the defendant's background and the circumstances of the