Lockett v. Ohio

This was the extent of the state's murder case against Sandra Lockett. Under an Ohio law, however:

[One who] purposely aids, helps, associates himself or herself with another for the purpose of committing a crime is regarded as if he or she were the principal offender and is just as guilty as if the person performed every act constituting the offense . . .

Ironically, Parker, who had actually had his hand on the gun, had made a deal with the state. In exchange for a plea that eliminated the possibility of him receiving the death penalty, he would testify against Lockett, her brother, and Dew. Lockett, on the other hand, who had done nothing more than help devise a plan for robbery--not murder--and drive a getaway car, was found guilty of aggravated murder. Under Ohio state law, there were only three mitigating circumstances that might allow the sentencer to avoid imposing the death penalty:

(1) If the victim had "induced or facilitated the offense";

(2) If the murderer was "under duress, coercion, or strong provocation";

(3) If the murder was "primarily the product of [the murderer's] psychosis or mental deficiency."

The psychiatric and psychological reports on Lockett showed that she was an excellent candidate for rehabilitation. Although she was of average or below-average intelligence, she had committed no major offenses (though she had a record of several minor ones), and she was "on the road to success" in curing her addiction to heroin. Yet these very factors meant that she was not eligible for consideration to avoid the death penalty. Clearly, she was not psychotic or mentally deficient.