WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court Tuesday overturned the murder conviction of a Louisiana death row inmate on the grounds that his jury was given a defective 'reasonable doubt' instruction before convicting him of the 1986 point-blank shooting of a college student.
The court reversed a decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana upholding the conviction of Tommy Cage, and sent the case back to Orleans Parish, La., for retrial.
Cage was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to die for the April 16, 1986, shooting death of Arthur Johnson.
Witnesses at Cage's trial said he attacked Johnson and another man in daylight as they tried to board a city bus in New Orleans, ripping a chain from the other man's neck and shooting Johnson in the back as he tried to flee.
Cage then allegedly ran to Johnson, who was lying on the ground and pleading for his life, shot him in the head and jerked a gold chain from his neck.
At a two-day trial in January 1987, Cage admitted firing the .38- caliber gun, but said he did not try to strike Johnson with the first shot and that the second shot 'just went off.'
Before conviction, the jury was instructed that it must find Cage guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict him. But in explaining what reasonable doubt is, the court said such doubt would 'give rise to a grave uncertainty.'
The court likened reasonable doubt to an 'actual substantial doubt,' and said jurors must hold a 'moral certainty' Cage was guilty before convicting him.
The high court, in a 2 -page order reversing the Supreme Court of Louisiana and remanding the case to the lower court, said the reasonable doubt instruction as read could have prejudiced the jury against Cage.
'It is plain to us that the words 'substantial' and 'grave,' as they are commonly understood, suggest a higher degree of doubt than is required for acquittal under the reasonable doubt standard,' wrote the high court in a unanimous decision.
'When those statements are then considered with the reference to 'moral certainty,' rather than evidentiary certainty, it becomes clear that a reasonable juror could have interpreted the instruction to allow a finding of guilt based on a degree of proof below that required by the Due Process Clause (of the Constitution),' the court concluded.NEWLN: ------NEWLN:89-7302 Tommy Cage vs. Louisiana
