boyde
california
argued
november
decided
march
evidence
presented
petitioner
boyde
penalty
phase
capital
murder
trial
related
background
character
trial
instructed
jury
inter
alia
accordance
instructions
california
jury
instructions
criminal
ed
caljic
since
amended
time
caljic
listed
factors
jury
shall
consider
determining
whether
impose
sentence
death
life
imprisonment
last
unadorned
version
factor
read
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
also
instructed
jury
pursuant
former
caljic
consider
applicable
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
directed
shall
impose
sentence
either
death
life
imprisonment
depending
upon
whether
aggravating
circumstances
outweighed
mitigating
circumstances
vice
versa
jury
imposed
death
sentence
state
affirmed
rejecting
boyde
contention
aforesaid
versions
caljic
violated
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
held
giving
former
caljic
violate
eighth
amendment
boyde
claim
mandatory
nature
instruction
shall
impose
language
prevented
jury
making
individualized
assessment
death
penalty
appropriateness
foreclosed
blystone
pennsylvania
ante
rejected
challenge
instruction
similar
mandatory
language
holding
requirement
individualized
capital
sentencing
satisfied
allowing
jury
consider
relevant
mitigating
evidence
boyde
alleged
instruction
mandatory
language
interfered
consideration
evidence
moreover
constitutional
basis
suggestion
jury
must
unfettered
discretion
decline
impose
death
penalty
even
decides
aggravating
circumstances
outweigh
mitigating
circumstances
free
structure
shape
consideration
mitigating
evidence
achieve
rational
equitable
administration
death
penalty
pp
giving
former
caljic
violate
eighth
amendment
precluding
jury
considering
factors
boyde
background
character
mitigating
evidence
pp
claim
challenged
instruction
ambiguous
therefore
subject
erroneous
interpretation
proper
inquiry
whether
reasonable
likelihood
jury
applied
instruction
way
prevents
consideration
constitutionally
relevant
evidence
although
defendant
need
establish
jury
likely
impermissibly
inhibited
instruction
capital
sentencing
proceeding
violate
eighth
amendment
possibility
inhibition
pp
reasonable
likelihood
jurors
interpreted
trial
instructions
preclude
consideration
mitigating
evidence
boyde
background
character
unadorned
factor
standing
alone
boyde
seems
suggest
limit
jury
consideration
circumstance
crime
directed
jury
consider
circumstance
might
excuse
crime
certainly
includes
background
character
moreover
factor
viewed
together
caljic
factors
allowing
consideration
mitigating
evidence
associated
crime
absence
prior
criminal
activity
felony
convictions
defendant
youth
seems
even
improbable
jurors
arrived
interpretation
precluded
consideration
evidence
similarly
reasonable
jurors
surely
felt
constrained
factor
instruction
ignore
boyde
evidence
four
days
testimony
consuming
pages
transcript
particularly
since
jury
also
instructed
shall
consider
evidence
received
part
trial
pp
merit
boyde
assertion
arguments
prosecutor
immediately
jury
sentencing
deliberations
made
likely
jurors
adopt
impermissible
interpretation
factor
instruction
arguments
generally
carry
less
weight
jury
instructions
subject
objection
correction
must
judged
context
made
although
prosecutor
argued
view
evidence
sufficiently
mitigate
boyde
conduct
never
suggested
background
character
evidence
considered
fact
made
statements
explicitly
assumed
evidence
relevant
defense
counsel
stressed
necessity
broad
reading
factor
pp
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
white
scalia
kennedy
joined
marshall
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
joined
parts
ii
iii
iv
blackmun
stevens
joined
post
dennis
fischer
appointment
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
john
bishop
frederick
millar
supervising
deputy
attorney
general
california
argued
cause
respondent
brief
john
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
richard
iglehart
chief
assistant
attorney
general
harley
mayfield
senior
assistant
attorney
general
jay
bloom
supervising
deputy
attorney
general
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
state
arizona
et
al
robert
corbin
attorney
general
arizona
paul
mcmurdie
assistant
attorney
general
jessica
gifford
funkhauser
joined
attorneys
general
respective
follows
donald
siegelman
alabama
william
webster
missouri
marc
racicot
montana
lacy
thornburg
north
carolina
anthony
celebrezze
ohio
ernest
preate
pennsylvania
joseph
meyer
wyoming
criminal
justice
legal
foundation
kent
scheidegger
charles
hobson
richard
neuhoff
eric
multhaup
filed
brief
california
appellate
project
amicus
curiae
chief
justice
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
case
requires
us
decide
whether
two
california
jury
instructions
used
penalty
phase
petitioner
capital
murder
trial
california
capital
cases
modified
respectively
consistent
requirements
eighth
amendment
hold
petitioner
richard
boyde
found
guilty
jury
robbery
kidnaping
murder
dickie
gibson
night
clerk
store
riverside
california
state
introduced
evidence
trial
january
boyde
entered
store
robbed
clerk
gunpoint
cash
register
petitioner
forced
gibson
waiting
car
driven
petitioner
nephew
three
men
drove
nearby
orange
grove
boyde
brought
gibson
grove
ordered
kneel
hands
behind
head
gibson
begged
life
boyde
shot
back
head
forehead
killing
jury
returned
special
verdict
boyde
personally
committed
homicide
express
malice
aforethought
premeditation
deliberation
penalty
phase
trial
jury
instructed
inter
alia
accordance
instructions
california
jury
instructions
criminal
ed
caljic
since
amended
former
lists
factors
jury
shall
consider
take
account
guided
determining
whether
impose
sentence
death
life
imprisonment
eleventh
factor
reads
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
concluding
instruction
pursuant
caljic
told
jury
consider
applicable
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
followed
direction
conclude
aggravating
circumstances
outweigh
mitigating
circumstances
shall
impose
sentence
death
however
determine
mitigating
circumstances
outweigh
aggravating
circumstances
shall
impose
sentence
confinement
state
prison
life
without
possibility
parole
emphasis
added
hearing
six
days
testimony
concerning
appropriate
penalty
jury
returned
verdict
imposing
sentence
death
trial
denied
boyde
motion
reduce
sentence
appeal
california
affirmed
cal
rejected
petitioner
contention
jury
instructions
violated
eighth
amendment
unadorned
version
factor
allow
jury
consider
mitigating
evidence
background
character
noted
defense
evidence
penalty
phase
related
boyde
background
character
jury
instructed
consider
evidence
received
part
trial
case
prosecutor
never
suggested
background
character
evidence
considered
therefore
found
inconceivable
jury
believed
though
permitted
hear
defendant
background
character
evidence
attorney
lengthy
argument
concerning
evidence
consider
evidence
ibid
regard
shall
impose
language
caljic
agreed
petitioner
instruction
permissibly
require
juror
vote
death
penalty
unless
upon
completion
weighing
process
decides
death
appropriate
penalty
circumstances
cal
quoting
people
brown
cal
concluded
however
case
jury
adequately
informed
discretion
determining
whether
death
appropriate
penalty
cal
three
justices
dissented
affirmance
death
sentence
dissenters
argued
mandatory
feature
instruction
misled
jury
believing
required
impose
death
penalty
aggravating
factors
outweighed
mitigating
factors
even
though
individual
juror
might
thought
death
appropriate
penalty
case
granted
certiorari
affirm
petitioner
reiterates
argument
mandatory
nature
former
caljic
resulted
sentencing
proceeding
violated
eighth
amendment
instruction
prevented
jury
making
individualized
assessment
appropriateness
death
penalty
see
penry
lynaugh
specifically
boyde
contends
shall
impose
language
jury
instruction
precluded
jury
evaluating
absolute
weight
aggravating
circumstances
determining
whether
justified
death
penalty
asserts
jury
prevented
deciding
whether
light
aggravating
mitigating
evidence
death
appropriate
penalty
response
state
argues
sentencing
proceeding
consistent
eighth
amendment
reasonable
juror
interpret
instruction
allowing
exercise
discretion
moral
judgment
appropriate
penalty
process
weighing
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
need
discuss
petitioner
claim
length
conclude
foreclosed
decision
earlier
term
blystone
pennsylvania
ante
blystone
rejected
challenge
instruction
similar
mandatory
language
holding
requirement
individualized
sentencing
capital
cases
satisfied
allowing
jury
consider
relevant
mitigating
evidence
ante
although
blystone
unlike
boyde
present
mitigating
evidence
penalty
phase
capital
trial
legal
principle
expounded
blystone
clearly
requires
rejection
boyde
claim
well
mandatory
language
caljic
alleged
interfered
consideration
mitigating
evidence
petitioner
suggests
jury
must
freedom
decline
impose
death
penalty
even
jury
decides
aggravating
circumstances
outweigh
mitigating
circumstances
constitutional
requirement
unfettered
sentencing
discretion
jury
free
structure
shape
consideration
mitigating
evidence
effort
achieve
rational
equitable
administration
death
penalty
franklin
lynaugh
plurality
opinion
petitioner
claim
shall
impose
language
caljic
unconstitutionally
prevents
individualized
assessment
jury
thus
without
merit
second
issue
case
whether
petitioner
capital
sentencing
proceedings
violated
eighth
amendment
trial
instructed
jury
accordance
former
caljic
including
unadorned
factor
eighth
amendment
requires
jury
able
consider
give
effect
relevant
mitigating
evidence
offered
petitioner
see
lockett
ohio
eddings
oklahoma
penry
supra
assessing
effect
challenged
jury
instruction
follow
familiar
rule
stated
cupp
naughten
determining
effect
instruction
validity
respondent
conviction
accept
outset
proposition
single
instruction
jury
may
judged
artificial
isolation
must
viewed
context
overall
charge
boyd
legal
standard
reviewing
jury
instructions
claimed
restrict
impermissibly
jury
consideration
relevant
evidence
less
clear
cases
francis
franklin
said
question
reasonable
juror
understood
charge
meaning
emphasis
added
see
also
sandstrom
montana
subsequent
decisions
sometimes
purporting
apply
francis
standard
adhered
strictly
formulation
california
brown
made
reference
reasonable
juror
done
done
two
terms
ago
mills
maryland
alluded
least
three
different
inquiries
evaluating
challenge
whether
reasonable
jurors
drawn
impermissible
interpretation
trial
instructions
emphasis
added
whether
substantial
possibility
jury
may
rested
verdict
improper
ground
emphasis
added
reasonable
jurors
applied
understood
instructions
white
concurring
emphasis
added
opinions
area
likewise
produced
variety
tests
standards
see
penry
lynaugh
reasonable
juror
well
believed
vehicle
expressing
view
penry
deserve
sentenced
death
based
upon
mitigating
evidence
emphasis
added
franklin
lynaugh
supra
stevens
dissenting
either
special
issues
understood
reasonable
jurors
gave
jury
opportunity
consider
petitioner
mitigating
evidence
emphasis
added
see
also
andres
reasonable
men
might
derive
meaning
instructions
given
proper
meaning
probable
emphasis
added
although
may
great
differences
among
various
phrasings
important
settle
upon
single
formulation
courts
employ
deciding
kind
federal
question
cases
understandably
provide
single
standard
determining
whether
various
claimed
errors
instructing
jury
require
reversal
conviction
instances
sure
held
case
submitted
jury
alternative
theories
unconstitutionality
theories
requires
conviction
set
aside
see
stromberg
california
leary
see
also
bachellar
maryland
cases
jury
clearly
instructed
may
convict
defendant
impermissible
legal
theory
well
proper
theory
theories
although
possible
guilty
verdict
may
proper
basis
equally
likely
verdict
rested
unconstitutional
ground
bachellar
supra
declined
choose
two
likely
possibilities
case
presented
single
jury
instruction
instruction
concededly
erroneous
found
case
stromberg
california
claim
instruction
ambiguous
therefore
subject
erroneous
interpretation
think
proper
inquiry
case
whether
reasonable
likelihood
jury
applied
challenged
instruction
way
prevents
consideration
constitutionally
relevant
evidence
although
defendant
need
establish
jury
likely
impermissibly
inhibited
instruction
capital
sentencing
proceeding
inconsistent
eighth
amendment
possibility
inhibition
reasonable
likelihood
standard
think
better
accommodates
concerns
finality
accuracy
standard
makes
inquiry
dependent
single
hypothetical
reasonable
juror
might
interpreted
instruction
course
strong
policy
favor
accurate
determination
appropriate
sentence
capital
case
equally
strong
policy
retrials
years
first
trial
claimed
error
amounts
speculation
jurors
sit
solitary
isolation
booths
parsing
instructions
subtle
shades
meaning
way
lawyers
might
differences
among
interpretation
instructions
may
thrashed
deliberative
process
commonsense
understanding
instructions
light
taken
place
trial
likely
prevail
technical
hairsplitting
applying
standard
factor
caljic
standing
alone
think
reasonable
likelihood
boyde
jurors
interpreted
trial
instructions
prevent
consideration
mitigating
evidence
background
character
jury
instructed
according
factor
shall
consider
ny
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
term
extenuate
defined
mean
lessen
seriousness
crime
giving
excuse
app
petitioner
contends
instruction
permit
jury
give
effect
evidence
presented
psychologists
family
friends
impoverished
deprived
childhood
inadequacies
school
student
strength
character
face
obstacles
explained
last
term
penry
lynaugh
evidence
defendant
background
character
relevant
belief
long
held
society
defendants
commit
criminal
acts
attributable
disadvantaged
background
emotional
mental
problems
may
less
culpable
defendants
excuse
quoting
california
brown
concurring
emphasis
added
petitioner
opportunity
factor
argue
background
character
extenuated
excused
seriousness
crime
see
reason
believe
reasonable
jurors
resist
view
long
held
society
appropriate
case
evidence
counsel
imposition
sentence
less
death
instruction
petitioner
seems
suggest
limit
jury
consideration
circumstance
crime
extenuates
gravity
crime
jury
directed
consider
circumstance
might
excuse
crime
certainly
includes
defendant
background
character
even
language
instruction
less
clear
think
context
proceedings
led
reasonable
jurors
believe
evidence
petitioner
background
character
considered
mitigation
factors
listed
caljic
allow
consideration
mitigating
evidence
associated
crime
absence
prior
criminal
activity
defendant
absence
prior
felony
convictions
youth
factor
viewed
together
instructions
seems
even
improbable
jurors
arrive
interpretation
precludes
consideration
evidence
defense
evidence
presented
penalty
phase
four
days
testimony
consuming
pages
trial
transcript
related
petitioner
background
character
think
unlikely
reasonable
jurors
believe
instructions
transformed
favorable
testimony
virtual
charade
california
brown
supra
jury
instructed
shall
consider
evidence
received
part
trial
case
app
emphasis
added
view
reasonable
jurors
surely
felt
constrained
factor
instruction
ignore
evidence
presented
petitioner
sentencing
phase
presentation
mitigating
evidence
alone
course
guarantee
jury
feel
entitled
consider
evidence
introduction
without
objection
volumes
mitigating
evidence
certainly
relevant
deciding
jury
understand
instruction
worst
ambiguous
case
unlike
instances
found
broad
descriptions
evidence
considered
insufficient
cure
statutes
instructions
clearly
directed
sentencer
disregard
evidence
see
hitchcock
dugger
clearer
advisory
jury
instructed
consider
sentencing
judge
refused
consider
evidence
nonstatutory
mitigating
circumstances
lockett
plurality
opinion
even
ohio
liberal
construction
death
penalty
statute
three
factors
specified
statute
considered
mitigation
defendant
sentence
petitioner
also
asserts
arguments
prosecutor
immediately
jury
sentencing
deliberations
reinforced
impermissible
interpretation
factor
made
likely
jurors
arrive
understanding
arguments
counsel
generally
carry
less
weight
jury
instructions
former
usually
billed
advance
jury
matters
argument
evidence
see
tr
likely
viewed
statements
advocates
latter
often
recognized
viewed
definitive
binding
statements
law
see
carter
kentucky
quercia
starr
arguments
counsel
misstate
law
subject
objection
correction
greer
miller
say
prosecutorial
misrepresentations
may
never
decisive
effect
jury
judged
force
instruction
arguments
counsel
like
instructions
must
judged
context
made
greer
supra
darden
wainwright
young
see
also
donnelly
dechristoforo
lightly
infer
prosecutor
intends
ambiguous
remark
damaging
meaning
jury
sitting
lengthy
exhortation
draw
meaning
plethora
less
damaging
interpretations
find
objectionable
prosecutorial
argument
case
petitioner
maintains
prosecutor
encouraged
intolerably
narrow
view
factor
argued
jury
mitigating
evidence
suggest
petitioner
crime
less
serious
gravity
crime
less
app
othing
heard
lessens
seriousness
crime
agree
california
without
dissent
point
lthough
prosecutor
argued
view
evidence
sufficiently
mitigate
boyde
conduct
never
suggested
background
character
evidence
considered
cal
principal
tack
contend
background
character
irrelevant
urge
jury
despite
petitioner
past
difficulties
must
accept
responsibility
actions
see
app
indeed
prosecutor
explicitly
assumed
petitioner
character
evidence
proper
factor
weighing
process
argued
minimal
relation
aggravating
circumstances
defendant
dance
defendant
may
artistic
talent
defendant
may
fact
good
children
course
years
even
basis
random
luck
going
picked
something
done
something
approve
consider
weight
goes
even
close
tr
emphasis
added
sum
conclude
reasonable
likelihood
jurors
petitioner
case
understood
challenged
instructions
preclude
consideration
relevant
mitigating
evidence
offered
petitioner
thus
hold
giving
jury
instructions
issue
case
former
caljic
violate
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
constitution
judgment
california
affirmed
footnotes
determining
penalty
imposed
defendant
shall
consider
evidence
received
part
trial
case
except
may
hereafter
instructed
shall
consider
take
account
guided
following
factors
applicable
circumstances
crime
defendant
convicted
present
proceeding
existence
special
circumstance
found
true
presence
absence
criminal
activity
defendant
involved
use
attempted
use
force
violence
expressed
implied
threat
use
force
violence
presence
absence
prior
felony
conviction
whether
offense
committed
defendant
influence
extreme
mental
emotional
disturbance
whether
victim
participant
defendant
homicidal
conduct
consented
homicidal
act
whether
offense
committed
circumstances
defendant
reasonably
believed
moral
justification
extenuation
conduct
whether
defendant
acted
extreme
duress
substantial
domination
another
person
whether
time
offense
capacity
defendant
appreciate
criminality
conduct
conform
conduct
requirements
law
impaired
result
mental
disease
defect
affects
intoxication
age
defendant
time
crime
whether
defendant
accomplice
offense
participation
commission
offense
relatively
minor
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
people
easley
cal
california
stated
order
avoid
potential
misunderstanding
meaning
factor
future
trial
courts
inform
jury
may
consider
mitigating
factor
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
aspect
defendant
character
record
defendant
proffers
basis
sentence
less
death
quoting
lockett
ohio
plurality
opinion
caljic
since
formally
amended
present
factor
instruction
directs
jury
consider
ny
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
sympathetic
aspect
defendant
character
record
defendant
offers
basis
sentence
less
death
whether
related
offense
trial
california
jury
instructions
criminal
ed
people
brown
cal
california
acknowledged
shall
impose
language
instruction
le
ft
room
confusion
jury
role
believed
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
required
jury
discretion
decide
whether
relevant
circumstances
defendant
deserves
punishment
death
life
without
parole
stated
case
mandatory
language
used
must
examined
merits
determine
whether
context
sentencer
may
misled
defendant
prejudice
scope
sentencing
discretion
law
noted
proposed
instruction
since
adopted
almost
verbatim
see
caljic
ed
conform
opinion
weighing
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
mean
mere
mechanical
weighing
factors
side
imaginary
scale
arbitrary
assignment
weights
free
assign
whatever
moral
sympathetic
value
deem
appropriate
various
factors
permitted
consider
weighing
various
circumstances
simply
determine
relevant
evidence
penalty
justified
appropriate
considering
totality
aggravating
circumstances
totality
mitigating
circumstances
return
judgment
death
must
persuaded
aggravating
evidence
circumstances
substantial
comparison
mitigating
circumstances
warrants
death
instead
life
without
parole
cal
contexts
held
defendant
establish
constitutional
violation
simply
demonstrating
alleged
error
might
affected
jury
establish
ineffective
assistance
counsel
violates
sixth
amendment
example
defendant
must
show
reasonable
probability
counsel
unprofessional
errors
result
proceeding
different
strickland
washington
deportation
potential
defense
witnesses
violate
due
process
unless
reasonable
likelihood
testimony
affected
judgment
trier
fact
failure
prosecution
disclose
allegedly
exculpatory
evidence
defense
violates
due
process
reasonable
probability
evidence
disclosed
defense
result
proceeding
different
bagley
receive
new
trial
based
newly
discovered
evidence
defendant
must
demonstrate
evidence
likely
lead
different
outcome
see
ins
abudu
dissent
focuses
terms
gravity
seriousness
argues
background
character
evidence
effect
seriousness
crime
jury
instructed
consider
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
lessens
seriousness
crime
giving
excuse
instruction
directs
jury
consider
circumstance
might
provide
excuse
think
jurors
naturally
consider
background
character
possible
excuse
oral
argument
though
brief
counsel
petitioner
also
argued
testimony
boyde
prize
dance
choreography
prison
showed
lead
useful
life
behind
bars
jury
must
able
consider
evidence
mitigating
circumstance
decision
skipper
south
carolina
factor
argued
allow
consideration
skipper
held
capital
defendant
must
permitted
introduce
mitigation
evidence
postcrime
good
prison
behavior
show
pose
danger
prison
community
sentenced
life
imprisonment
rather
death
testimony
petitioner
dance
contest
prison
however
introduced
demonstrate
model
prisoner
like
skipper
therefore
unlikely
present
risk
future
dangerousness
show
artistic
ability
tr
moreover
although
record
clear
point
petitioner
apparently
dance
prize
prison
term
served
prior
gibson
murder
evidence
thus
pertain
prison
behavior
crime
sentenced
death
case
skipper
testimony
dancing
ability
presented
part
petitioner
overall
strategy
portray
less
culpable
defendants
due
disadvantaged
background
character
strengths
face
difficulties
evidence
good
character
therefore
jury
opportunity
conclude
factor
petitioner
dancing
ability
extenuated
gravity
crime
showed
boyde
criminal
conduct
aberration
otherwise
good
character
find
merit
contention
petitioner
amicus
arguments
prosecutors
california
cases
bear
validity
factor
instruction
case
petitioner
jury
obviously
influenced
comments
made
california
capital
trials
think
fact
prosecutors
cases
may
pressed
construction
factor
cause
sentencing
proceedings
violate
eighth
amendment
means
reasonable
jurors
likely
arrived
interpretation
prosecutors
interested
advocates
arguments
one
prosecutors
may
made
urging
particular
construction
factor
cases
weighty
factor
deciding
whether
jury
petitioner
case
felt
precluded
considering
mitigating
evidence
justice
marshall
justice
brennan
joins
justice
blackmun
justice
stevens
join
parts
ii
iii
iv
dissenting
bedrock
principle
capital
punishment
jurisprudence
deciding
whether
impose
sentence
death
sentencer
must
consider
nature
offense
also
character
propensities
offender
woodson
north
carolina
plurality
opinion
quoting
pennsylvania
ex
rel
sullivan
ashe
see
also
ante
without
question
commitment
individualized
sentencing
capital
proceedings
provides
hope
avoid
administering
death
penalty
discriminatorily
wantonly
freakishly
gregg
georgia
white
concurring
judgment
footnotes
omitted
insistence
law
sentencer
know
consider
defendant
human
deciding
whether
impose
ultimate
sanction
operates
shield
arbitrary
execution
enforces
abiding
judgment
offender
circumstances
apart
crime
relevant
appropriate
punishment
holds
today
richard
boyde
death
sentence
must
affirmed
even
sentencing
jury
reasonably
believed
consider
mitigating
evidence
regarding
character
background
eschewing
fundamental
principle
risk
death
penalty
imposed
spite
factors
may
call
less
severe
penalty
unacceptable
incompatible
commands
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
lockett
ohio
adopts
unduly
stringent
standard
reviewing
challenge
sentencing
instruction
alleged
constitutionally
deficient
majority
approach
capital
sentence
stand
unless
reasonable
likelihood
jury
applied
challenged
instruction
unconstitutionally
ante
majority
reasonable
likelihood
standard
met
reasonable
juror
might
interpreted
challenged
instruction
unconstitutionally
ibid
standard
inconsistent
longstanding
focus
reviewing
challenged
instructions
criminal
contexts
whether
juror
reasonably
interpret
instructions
unconstitutional
manner
see
sandstrom
montana
even
striking
majority
first
adopts
standard
review
capital
sentencing
instruction
long
shared
assessment
death
qualitatively
different
punishments
see
spaziano
florida
stevens
concurring
part
dissenting
part
collecting
cases
never
understood
principle
mean
review
death
verdicts
less
solicitude
criminal
judgments
adopting
unprecedented
standard
majority
places
much
risk
error
capital
sentencing
defendant
majority
conclusion
reasonable
likelihood
jurors
petitioner
case
understood
challenged
instructions
preclude
consideration
relevant
mitigating
evidence
ante
belied
plain
meaning
instructions
context
given
instructions
given
boyde
jury
constitutionally
inadequate
standard
including
one
adopted
today
dissent
penalty
phase
trial
richard
boyde
presented
extensive
mitigating
evidence
regarding
background
character
presented
testimony
regarding
impoverished
background
borderline
intelligence
inability
get
counseling
efforts
reform
friends
family
testified
notwithstanding
criminal
conduct
boyde
possesses
redeeming
qualities
including
ability
work
well
children
accordance
california
capital
jury
instructions
trial
instructed
jury
consider
take
account
guided
sentencing
factors
deciding
whether
return
verdict
death
california
jury
instructions
criminal
ed
caljic
none
factors
explicitly
informed
jury
consider
evidence
defendant
background
character
see
people
easley
cal
boyde
argues
trial
instructions
constitutionally
inadequate
state
responds
instructions
fully
informed
jury
responsibility
consider
character
background
evidence
factor
provided
jury
consider
ny
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
boyde
replies
reasonable
juror
understood
factor
permitting
consideration
evidence
related
circumstances
crime
ii
essential
corollary
standard
criminal
proceedings
conviction
capital
otherwise
stand
jury
verdict
rested
unconstitutional
grounds
see
stromberg
california
williams
north
carolina
cramer
yates
leary
bachellar
maryland
see
also
chapman
california
efore
federal
constitutional
error
held
harmless
must
able
declare
belief
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
society
values
presumption
innocence
demands
resolution
reasonable
doubt
stripping
members
liberty
life
decision
leave
undisturbed
sentence
death
constitutionally
infirm
intolerable
contrary
majority
intimation
legal
standard
less
clear
cases
see
ante
firmly
adhered
strict
standard
review
challenged
jury
instructions
sandstrom
montana
supra
petitioner
claimed
trial
instructions
unconstitutionally
shifted
burden
proof
regarding
intent
time
crime
rejecting
state
claim
jury
might
understood
instruction
unconstitutional
manner
declared
whether
defendant
accorded
constitutional
rights
depends
upon
way
reasonable
juror
interpreted
instruction
emphasis
added
way
knowing
sandstrom
convicted
basis
unconstitutional
instruction
held
conviction
must
set
aside
likewise
francis
franklin
applied
sandstrom
invalidate
conviction
reasonable
juror
understood
instructions
placed
burden
proof
defendant
emphasized
question
state
declares
meaning
charge
rather
reasonable
juror
understood
charge
meaning
citing
sandstrom
supra
emphasis
added
sandstrom
equally
applicable
claims
challenging
constitutionality
capital
sentencing
instructions
see
california
brown
deciding
whether
mere
sympathy
instruction
impermissibly
excludes
consideration
mitigating
evidence
question
reasonable
juror
understood
charge
meaning
quoting
francis
supra
recently
mills
maryland
unequivocally
confirmed
reviewing
sentencing
instructions
alleged
preclude
full
consideration
mitigating
circumstances
critical
question
whether
petitioner
interpretation
sentencing
process
one
reasonable
jury
drawn
instructions
given
trial
judge
citing
francis
supra
sandstrom
brown
supra
emphasis
added
cases
leave
doubt
appropriate
standard
review
sure
dissent
francis
disagreed
acknowledged
legal
standard
finds
constitutional
error
reasonable
juror
understood
charge
particular
manner
rehnquist
dissenting
francis
majority
squarely
unqualifiedly
rejected
dissent
proposal
constitutional
error
found
must
something
reasonable
possibility
unconstitutional
understanding
challenged
instruction
francis
stated
settled
law
since
stromberg
california
exists
reasonable
possibility
jury
relied
unconstitutional
understanding
law
reaching
guilty
verdict
verdict
must
set
aside
ibid
majority
defends
adoption
reasonable
likelihood
standard
ground
better
accommodates
concerns
finality
accuracy
standard
makes
inquiry
dependent
single
hypothetical
reasonable
juror
might
interpreted
instruction
ante
majority
fails
however
explain
new
standard
differs
sandstrom
standard
suggest
new
standard
unlike
sandstrom
requires
speculation
overturn
capital
sentence
ibid
difficult
conceive
reasonable
juror
interpret
instruction
unconstitutionally
reasonable
likelihood
juror
indeed
majority
explicitly
allow
possibility
lower
courts
good
reason
doubt
two
standards
different
majority
stringent
version
reasonable
likelihood
standard
inconsistent
cases
majority
appropriates
standard
reasonable
likelihood
language
first
appeared
napue
illinois
reversed
determination
prosecutor
failure
correct
perjured
testimony
affect
verdict
rejected
claim
bound
state
determination
false
testimony
reasonable
likelihood
affected
judgment
jury
emphasis
added
based
review
record
overturned
defendant
conviction
false
testimony
may
effect
outcome
trial
emphasis
added
language
napue
thereafter
provided
governing
standard
determining
whether
prosecutor
knowing
use
perjured
testimony
mandates
reversal
sentence
see
bagley
opinion
blackmun
justice
blackmun
explained
bagley
reasonable
likelihood
standard
understood
equivalent
harmless
error
standard
adopted
chapman
california
rule
conviction
obtained
knowing
use
perjured
testimony
must
set
aside
reasonable
likelihood
false
testimony
affected
jury
verdict
derives
napue
illinois
napue
antedated
chapman
california
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
standard
established
chapman
noted
little
difference
rule
formulated
napue
terms
whether
reasonable
possibility
evidence
complained
might
contributed
conviction
rule
requiring
beneficiary
constitutional
error
prove
beyond
reasonable
doubt
error
complained
contribute
verdict
obtained
therefore
clear
precedents
indicate
standard
review
applicable
knowing
use
perjured
testimony
equivalent
chapman
standard
citations
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
extent
new
standard
require
defendant
make
greater
showing
sandstrom
malleability
standard
encourages
ad
hoc
review
challenged
instructions
lower
courts
although
standard
majority
adopts
requires
defendant
challenging
constitutionality
instruction
demonstrate
reasonable
possibility
jury
impermissibly
inhibited
instruction
defendant
need
establish
jury
likely
misled
ante
beyond
suggestion
error
must
possible
less
probable
silent
thus
appellate
courts
familiar
applying
sandstrom
standard
ambiguous
instructions
required
speculate
whether
instruction
misunderstood
creates
reasonable
likelihood
fact
misunderstood
ante
discern
principled
review
alleged
constitutional
errors
advanced
standard
regarded
two
standards
identical
prior
cases
see
supra
doubt
contribute
confusion
lower
courts
fundamentally
majority
offers
persuasive
basis
altering
standard
review
regarding
capital
instructions
alleged
constitutionally
infirm
despite
majority
declaration
contrary
strong
policy
favor
accurate
determination
appropriate
sentence
capital
case
equaled
strong
policy
retrials
based
alleged
deficiencies
jury
instructions
ante
long
embraced
commitment
resolving
doubts
accuracy
death
verdict
favor
capital
defendant
see
beck
alabama
risk
unwarranted
conviction
tolerated
case
defendant
life
stake
indeed
characterize
commitment
accurate
capital
verdicts
policy
inappropriately
dismissive
heightened
dedication
fairness
accuracy
capital
proceedings
see
bullington
missouri
woodson
plurality
opinion
moreover
finality
concerns
majority
alludes
far
less
compelling
context
majority
suggests
addressing
certain
challenges
presumptively
valid
convictions
identified
specific
justifications
requiring
heightened
showing
defendant
thus
demands
showing
greater
possibility
error
reviewing
defendant
request
new
trial
based
newly
discovered
evidence
ins
abudu
finality
concerns
somewhat
weaker
context
claims
strickland
washington
adoption
high
standard
newly
discovered
evidence
claims
presuppose
essential
elements
presumptively
accurate
fair
proceeding
present
proceeding
whose
result
challenged
ibid
likewise
strickland
held
defendant
must
show
reasonable
probability
counsel
unprofessional
errors
result
proceeding
different
ibid
adopting
demanding
standard
relied
heavily
special
circumstances
give
rise
claims
particular
emphasized
government
inability
assure
defendant
effective
counsel
given
case
difficulties
reviewing
courts
face
discerning
precise
effects
various
errors
conflict
interest
claims
aside
actual
ineffectiveness
claims
alleging
deficiency
attorney
performance
subject
general
requirement
defendant
affirmatively
prove
prejudice
government
responsible
hence
able
prevent
attorney
errors
result
reversal
conviction
sentence
attorney
errors
come
infinite
variety
likely
utterly
harmless
particular
case
prejudicial
classified
according
likelihood
causing
prejudice
defined
sufficient
precision
inform
defense
attorneys
correctly
conduct
avoid
representation
art
act
omission
unprofessional
one
case
may
sound
even
brilliant
another
contrast
case
require
relitigate
facts
speculate
possible
effects
alternative
representation
strategies
boyde
counsel
might
pursued
trial
quite
simply
issue
whether
trial
properly
instructed
jury
regarding
capital
sentencing
role
challenge
goes
core
accuracy
verdict
asks
whether
defendant
sentenced
jury
according
law
bollenbach
conviction
rest
equivocal
direction
jury
basic
issue
circumstance
capital
defendant
interest
exacting
review
alleged
error
unquestionably
height
presumptive
validity
regarding
jury
sentence
state
hand
retains
strong
reliance
interest
sustaining
capital
verdict
may
obtained
based
misunderstanding
law
refusal
apply
standard
less
protective
reasonable
doubt
alleged
errors
criminal
trials
part
guarantees
reliability
jury
determination
also
reflects
belief
appellate
courts
invad
factfinding
function
criminal
case
law
assigns
solely
jury
carella
california
scalia
concurring
judgment
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
citations
omitted
thus
jury
instructions
unclear
appellate
may
choose
preferred
construction
transfer
jury
judge
function
giving
law
transfer
appellate
jury
function
measuring
evidence
appropriate
legal
yardsticks
bollenbach
supra
reasoning
less
applicable
california
capital
sentencing
proceedings
factfinding
function
assigned
jury
see
hicks
oklahoma
defendant
substantial
legitimate
expectation
deprived
liberty
extent
determined
jury
exercise
statutory
discretion
violates
due
process
affirm
sentence
simply
frail
conjecture
jury
might
imposed
sentence
equally
harsh
properly
instructed
ignore
reasonable
possibility
jurors
misled
range
mitigating
evidence
consider
undermine
confidence
jury
actually
decided
boyde
sentenced
death
accordance
law
overrides
california
fundamental
decision
exercise
official
power
reluctance
entrust
plenary
powers
life
liberty
citizen
one
judge
group
judges
duncan
louisiana
accordingly
review
challenged
instructions
case
determine
whether
reasonable
juror
understood
preclude
consideration
mitigating
evidence
regarding
boyde
character
background
iii
standard
though
instructions
inadequate
ensure
jury
considered
mitigating
evidence
majority
conclusion
factor
understood
reasonable
jurors
permit
consideration
mitigating
factors
unrelated
crime
accord
plain
meaning
factor
language
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
unambiguously
refers
circumstances
related
crime
jurors
relying
ordinary
language
experience
view
seriousness
crime
dependent
upon
background
character
offender
typical
juror
example
describe
particular
murder
less
serious
crime
redeeming
qualities
murderer
surely
boyde
murder
gibson
considered
less
grave
majority
suggests
boyde
demonstrated
criminal
conduct
aberration
otherwise
good
character
ante
rather
offender
background
character
unrelated
crime
considered
sentencer
society
deeply
felt
view
punishment
reflect
seriousness
crime
nature
offender
see
penry
lynaugh
sentence
reflect
reasoned
moral
response
defendant
background
character
crime
quoting
california
brown
concurring
majority
resists
natural
understanding
instruction
focusing
language
penry
describes
belief
long
held
society
defendants
commit
criminal
acts
attributable
disadvantaged
background
emotional
mental
problems
may
less
culpable
defendants
excuse
ante
quoting
penry
supra
emphasis
added
majority
according
majority
statement
reveals
jurors
understand
background
character
evidence
extenuating
seriousness
crime
language
prove
majority
prove
language
tells
us
clear
several
cases
criminal
defendant
may
considered
less
culpable
thus
less
deserving
severe
punishment
encountered
unusual
difficulties
background
suffers
limited
intellectual
emotional
resources
possesses
redeeming
qualities
see
woodson
plurality
opinion
language
penry
however
suggest
offender
culpability
lessened
crime
less
serious
rather
answering
central
question
case
whether
character
background
evidence
regarded
extenuat
ing
gravity
crime
opposed
lessening
offender
moral
culpability
penry
simply
confirms
offender
background
character
apart
crime
must
considered
fixing
punishment
majority
appears
rest
position
assumption
nonsensical
given
society
long
held
belief
character
background
evidence
relevant
sentencing
determination
conclude
jury
might
thought
consider
evidence
ante
value
giving
effect
mitigating
evidence
deeply
held
assumption
holds
surely
jury
misled
trial
instructions
sad
irony
majority
position
reasoning
fundamentally
rooted
legal
principle
constitutional
values
less
scrutiny
apply
jury
instructions
run
counter
principle
example
presumption
innocence
bedrock
axiomatic
elementary
principle
whose
enforcement
lies
foundation
administration
criminal
law
winship
quoting
coffin
majority
apparently
resolve
doubts
adequacy
instruction
accused
assumption
jurors
share
long
held
belief
presumption
innocence
majority
position
therefore
encourage
trial
courts
exacting
instructions
regarding
legal
minutiae
leave
barest
form
instructions
regarding
principles
indispensable
command
respect
confidence
community
applications
criminal
law
argument
inverts
degree
concern
exhibit
toward
fundamental
errors
criminal
proceedings
unacceptable
majority
maintains
adequacy
instruction
must
judged
context
overall
charge
ante
citations
omitted
nothing
charge
however
overcame
constitutional
inadequacy
factor
failing
instruct
jury
consider
mitigating
evidence
majority
suggests
factor
referring
ny
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
emphasis
added
signaled
character
background
evidence
considered
ther
factors
listed
caljic
allow
consideration
mitigating
evidence
associated
crime
ante
majority
thus
believes
jury
unlikely
read
limitation
factor
shared
factors
prefatory
language
factor
refers
language
factor
need
refer
preceding
factors
well
refer
solely
factors
permit
consideration
mitigating
evidence
related
offense
understanding
instruction
must
turn
meaning
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
factor
prefatory
language
phrase
unambiguously
refers
circumstances
related
crime
one
reasonably
conclude
basis
scope
factors
jury
understood
factor
encompass
mitigating
evidence
regarding
boyde
character
background
equally
unpersuasive
majority
claim
boyde
presentation
extensive
background
character
evidence
suggests
jurors
aware
responsibility
consider
give
effect
evidence
argument
foreclosed
penry
stated
enough
simply
allow
defendant
present
mitigating
evidence
sentencer
sentencer
must
also
able
consider
give
effect
evidence
imposing
sentence
thus
mere
presentation
mitigating
evidence
absence
mechanism
giving
effect
evidence
satisfy
constitutional
requirements
majority
attempts
avoid
conclusion
characterizing
case
unlike
instructions
clearly
directed
sentencer
disregard
evidence
ante
implicit
claim
view
constitution
satisfied
sentencing
instructions
explicitly
preclude
jury
considering
mitigating
evidence
words
constitution
provides
affirmative
guarantee
jury
informed
proper
sentencing
role
view
unsupportable
lockett
faced
statutory
restrictions
consideration
mitigating
evidence
framed
relevant
question
case
whether
instructions
prevent
ed
sentence
giving
independent
mitigating
weight
aspects
defendant
character
understood
principle
affirmatively
require
sentencing
alert
jury
constitutional
role
capital
sentencing
thus
penry
overturned
death
sentence
jury
informed
consider
mitigating
evidence
regarding
penry
mental
retardation
childhood
abuse
absence
instructions
informing
jury
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
dispositive
emphasis
added
see
also
brown
concurring
jury
instructions
taken
whole
must
clearly
inform
jury
consider
relevant
mitigating
evidence
defendant
background
character
emphasis
added
cf
sumner
shuman
eighth
amendment
require
schemes
permit
defendant
present
relevant
mitigating
evidence
lockett
requires
sentencer
listen
evidence
quoting
eddings
oklahoma
fairly
conclude
mere
presentation
evidence
satisfied
boyde
right
constitutionally
adequate
sentencing
determination
finally
examining
context
sentencing
instructions
majority
finds
objectionable
prosecutorial
argument
reinforce
impermissible
interpretation
factor
although
prosecutor
never
suggested
background
character
evidence
considered
ante
quoting
cal
need
factor
accomplished
purpose
prosecutor
make
point
needed
repeat
language
jury
opening
penalty
phase
argument
jury
prosecutor
described
background
character
evidence
boyde
offered
asked
rhetorically
oes
way
relieve
way
suggest
crime
less
serious
gravity
crime
less
think
app
majority
suggests
argument
merely
went
weight
jury
assign
boyde
character
background
evidence
ante
argument
directly
tracks
language
factor
specifying
evidence
may
considered
weight
attached
evidence
argument
suggest
boyde
background
character
evidence
untrue
insubstantial
rather
emphasizes
evidence
indeed
way
lessen
seriousness
gravity
crime
prosecutor
closing
statement
likewise
reinforced
message
evidence
unrelated
crime
fall
within
scope
factor
look
read
says
extenuation
says
lessen
seriousness
crime
giving
excuse
nothing
heard
lessens
seriousness
crime
app
prosecutor
designed
argument
bring
home
jury
plain
meaning
sentencing
instructions
argument
focuses
language
factor
substance
boyde
mitigating
evidence
confirms
prosecutor
sought
prevent
jury
considering
evidence
case
potentially
misleading
prosecutorial
argument
discounted
trial
instructions
satisfactorily
informed
jury
proper
sentencing
role
rather
prosecutor
exploited
constitutional
inadequacy
factor
sought
ensure
limited
scope
factor
escape
attention
jury
thus
prosecutor
comments
trial
charge
failed
communicate
jury
give
effect
mitigating
character
background
evidence
least
reasonable
juror
understood
charge
prosecutor
arguments
limited
accordingly
neither
words
charge
context
given
provide
sufficient
assurance
jury
considered
mitigating
evidence
iv
state
brings
criminal
action
deny
defendant
liberty
life
interests
defendant
magnitude
historically
without
explicit
constitutional
requirement
protected
standards
proof
designed
exclude
nearly
possible
likelihood
erroneous
judgment
santosky
kramer
quoting
addington
texas
conclude
confidence
boyde
jury
understood
consider
mitigating
factors
evidence
boyde
difficult
background
limited
personal
resources
majority
regards
confidence
conclusion
unnecessary
affirmance
boyde
death
sentence
reflects
growing
unjustified
hostility
claims
constitutional
violation
capital
defendants
tolerate
possibility
error
capital
proceedings
leav
people
doubt
winship
whether
defendants
undeserving
fate
put
death
hasten
return
discriminatory
wanton
freakish
administration
death
penalty
found
intolerable
furman
georgia
adhering
view
death
penalty
circumstances
cruel
unusual
punishment
prohibited
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
gregg
georgia
marshall
dissenting
case
vacate
decision
affirming
boyde
death
sentence
majority
attributes
uncertainty
regarding
proper
standard
decision
andres
quoting
follows
reasonable
men
might
derive
meaning
instructions
given
proper
meaning
probable
ante
ellipsis
emphasis
added
majority
majority
fails
quote
following
sentence
declared
death
cases
doubts
presented
resolved
favor
accused
read
context
passage
suggests
case
instruction
probably
misinterpreted
doubt
must
resolved
favor
accused
suggest
majority
implies
must
probable
instruction
misinterpreted
conviction
overturned
majority
likewise
mischaracterizes
holding
bachellar
maryland
majority
suggests
bachellar
turned
fact
equally
likely
verdict
rested
unconstitutional
ground
ante
quoting
ellipsis
added
majority
bachellar
thus
reflects
refusal
choose
two
likely
possibilities
ante
majority
misrepresentation
bachellar
holding
becomes
apparent
ellipsis
inserted
majority
removed
far
tell
equally
likely
verdict
resulted
merely
petitioners
views
vietnam
offensive
hearers
street
new
york
thus
since
petitioners
convictions
rested
unconstitutional
ground
must
set
aside
emphasis
added
majority
perceives
little
difference
longstanding
approach
challenged
jury
instructions
reformulated
reasonable
likelihood
standard
suggests
alarming
insensitivity
premises
underlying
criminal
justice
system
reasonable
doubt
standard
trial
reflects
awareness
meaning
serious
consequences
society
attaches
criminal
conviction
insistence
reasonable
certainty
correctness
capital
sentencing
instructions
commensurate
heightened
concern
accuracy
capital
proceedings
thus
majority
assertion
may
great
differences
among
various
phrasing
ante
unfounded
contrary
reviewing
criminal
judgments
described
difference
standard
demands
reasonable
certainty
one
hand
one
tolerates
significant
doubt
difference
sets
apart
society
values
good
name
freedom
every
individual
winship
repudiation
malleable
standard
francis
franklin
rejected
proposed
likely
standard
less
applicable
proposed
alternative
standard
provides
sound
basis
appellate
review
jury
instructions
malleability
certainly
generate
inconsistent
appellate
results
thereby
compound
confusion
plagued
area
law
perhaps
importantly
suggested
approach
provides
incentive
trial
courts
weed
potentially
infirm
language
jury
instructions
majority
concedes
see
ante
several
years
boyde
trial
california
recognized
potential
misunderstanding
generated
instructions
challenged
case
thereafter
required
lower
courts
supplement
unadorned
factor
instruction
language
explicitly
inform
jury
consider
aspect
defendant
character
record
defendant
proffers
basis
sentence
less
death
people
easley
cal
quoting
lockett
ohio
thus
unsurprising
criminal
treatise
describing
evolution
offense
classification
criminal
system
reports
serious
offenses
murder
manslaughter
rape
arson
came
called
felonies
whereas
presumably
less
serious
offenses
came
called
misdemeanors
torcia
wharton
criminal
law
ed
see
also
argersinger
hamlin
ven
prosecutions
offenses
less
serious
felonies
fair
trial
may
require
presence
lawyer
characterization
felonies
defined
certain
elements
serious
crimes
regardless
nature
offender
captures
intuitive
sense
crime
made
less
serious
factors
extrinsic
circumstances
surrounding
offense
similar
reasons
doctrine
justification
excuse
criminal
law
focuses
solely
factors
related
commission
crime
duress
necessity
entrapment
ignorance
mistake
see
lafave
scott
substantive
criminal
law
ch
extent
spoken
issue
supports
view
circumstances
extenuate
gravity
crime
analytically
distinct
evidence
regarding
offender
character
background
commitment
considering
background
character
evidence
capital
punishment
jurisprudence
traceable
part
woodson
following
passage
pennsylvania
ex
rel
sullivan
ashe
emphasis
added
unishment
like
crimes
may
made
severe
committed
determination
sentences
justice
generally
requires
consideration
particular
acts
crime
committed
taken
account
circumstances
offense
together
character
propensities
offender
indeed
least
seven
ten
factors
preceding
factor
factors
relate
solely
circumstances
surrounding
commission
offense
see
ante
quoting
complete
instruction
reasons
canvassed
justice
brennan
dissent
blystone
pennsylvania
ante
also
believe
mandatory
language
california
sentencing
scheme
deprives
capital
defendant
independent
judgment
sentencer
death
appropriate
punishment
like
instruction
blystone
boyde
instruction
required
sentencer
deliver
verdict
death
aggravating
circumstance
circumstances
matter
insubstantial
outweighed
mitigating
circumstances
channeling
sentencing
discretion
indeed
essential
aspect
constitutional
capital
punishment
scheme
understood
deprive
sentencer
choice
reject
ultimate
sanction
aggravating
circumstances
warrant