The case involves whether a statistical study showing racial bias in capital sentencing makes McCleskey's death sentence unconstitutional under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment. McCleskey presented the Baldus study, which showed a disparity in the imposition of the death sentence based on the race of the murder victim and, to a lesser extent, the race of the defendant. The Supreme Court found that the statistical evidence presented, assuming its validity, confirms that the system is working differently from the one condemned in Furman v. Georgia. However, to establish an equal protection violation, the defendant must prove discriminatory purpose and effect. The disparities indicated by the Baldus study are insufficient to support an inference that any of the decision-makers in McCleskey's case acted with discriminatory purpose. McCleskey's equal protection claims are rejected. The Court will begin its analysis of McCleskey's claim that the Georgia capital sentencing system violates the Eighth Amendment by reviewing the restrictions on death sentences established by prior decisions under that Amendment.

The legal case concerns the constitutionality of Warren McCleskey's death sentence and the role of race in capital sentencing. The Court recognizes the persistent danger of racial bias in criminal proceedings and requires defendants challenging their death sentences to establish that the system posed a significant risk of impermissible considerations infecting sentencing decisions. The statistical evidence suggests that McCleskey's death sentence was influenced by racial bias, and the Court invalidated parts of the Georgia capital sentencing system due to concerns of racial prejudice and unbounded discretion. The lack of guidelines for prosecutors to seek the death penalty and the absence of standards for balancing aggravating and mitigating factors create an opportunity for unconscious racial considerations to influence charging and sentencing decisions. The judicial role in preventing arbitrary punishment is a fundamental ideal of any society governed by the rule of law.

The dissenting opinion in the McCleskey case argues that the Court's decision to allow his execution despite evidence of racially-based discrimination leading to his death sentence violates constitutional guarantees. The Court applies a lower standard of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, citing the fact that this is a capital punishment case. McCleskey has met the first prong of the standard by demonstrating that black persons are a distinct group that are singled out for different treatment in the Georgia capital sentencing system. The Baldus study shows that a death sentence is much less likely to result from a murder of a black person than from a murder of a white person. McCleskey presented evidence that his death sentence was significantly influenced by racial factors, with being charged with killing a white person making him 4.3 times more likely to receive a death sentence than if he had killed a black person. This evidence indicates that Georgia's capital sentencing system's use of race as an aggravating circumstance is unconstitutional. McCleskey also provided evidence that racial factors played a significant role in the prosecutor's decision to seek the death penalty. The evidence was statistically significant and consistent with the data from Fulton County, where McCleskey was tried and sentenced. The State's evidence was insufficient to refute the Baldus evidence, and McCleskey has demonstrated a clear pattern of differential treatment based on race that cannot be explained by any other factors. The burden shifts to the State to provide a legitimate explanation for the racially skewed result, demonstrating that racially neutral criteria and procedures were used.

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Stevens and joined by Justice Blackmun, argues that the death penalty requires a higher level of reliability in determining its appropriateness in a specific case. The opinion emphasizes the importance of ensuring that decisions to impose the death penalty are based on reason rather than emotion or caprice, and that any potential errors in the deliberative process must be carefully scrutinized in capital cases. The passage asserts that the jury's sentencing process in McCleskey's case may have been driven by racial bias, which is a violation of constitutional rights. The Court has previously emphasized the need for the fair and uniform application of capital punishment or abstaining from its use. The passage argues that the Court's decision was motivated by a concern that accepting McCleskey's claim would lead to the end of capital punishment in Georgia. However, restructuring the sentencing scheme to narrow the class of death-eligible defendants to certain categories of serious crimes would significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the risk of arbitrary and discriminatory imposition of the death penalty. Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion supports this restructuring as a reasonable solution.