graham
collins
argued
october
decided
january
petitioner
graham
capital
murder
conviction
death
sentence
became
final
unsuccessfully
seeking
postconviction
relief
texas
state
courts
filed
habeas
corpus
action
federal
district
alleging
inter
alia
three
special
issues
sentencing
jury
required
answer
state
capital
sentencing
statute
existence
prevented
jury
giving
effect
consistent
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
mitigating
evidence
youth
unstable
family
background
positive
character
traits
affirming
district
denial
relief
appeals
reviewed
holdings
constitutional
requirement
sentencer
permitted
consider
act
upon
relevant
mitigating
evidence
put
forth
capital
defendant
ruled
graham
jury
give
adequate
mitigating
effect
evidence
question
way
answering
special
issues
held
graham
claim
barred
relief
seeks
require
announcement
new
rule
constitutional
law
contravention
principles
set
forth
teague
lane
plurality
opinion
pp
holding
dictated
precedent
existing
time
defendant
conviction
became
final
constitutes
new
rule
absent
applicability
one
two
exceptions
applied
announced
case
collateral
review
penry
lynaugh
thus
determinative
question
whether
reasonable
jurists
hearing
graham
claim
felt
compelled
existing
precedent
rule
favor
see
saffle
parks
pp
said
reasonable
jurists
hearing
graham
claim
felt
existing
precedent
dictated
vacatur
death
sentence
within
teague
meaning
contrary
joint
opinion
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
jurek
texas
reasonably
read
upheld
constitutionality
statutory
scheme
graham
sentenced
including
special
issues
satisfied
petitioner
mitigating
evidence
including
age
given
constitutionally
adequate
consideration
course
jury
deliberation
special
issues
moreover
lockett
ohio
plurality
opinion
expressly
embraced
jurek
holding
eddings
oklahoma
signaled
retreat
conclusion
thus
likely
reasonable
jurists
found
cases
texas
statute
satisfied
commands
eighth
amendment
permitted
graham
place
jury
whatever
mitigating
evidence
show
including
age
focusing
jury
attention
upon
evidence
revealed
capacity
deliberation
prospects
rehabilitation
nothing
cases
extent
relevant
undermine
analysis
even
penry
supra
upon
graham
chiefly
relies
reasonably
read
suggest
mitigating
evidence
adequately
considered
texas
procedures
answer
determinative
question
teague
pp
new
rule
graham
seeks
fall
within
either
teague
exceptions
first
exception
plainly
application
graham
rule
neither
decriminalize
class
conduct
prohibit
imposition
capital
punishment
particular
class
persons
see
saffle
supra
second
exception
watershed
rules
implicating
fundamental
fairness
accuracy
also
inapplicable
since
denying
graham
special
jury
instructions
concerning
mitigating
evidence
seriously
diminish
likelihood
obtaining
accurate
determination
sentencing
proceeding
see
butler
mckellar
pp
white
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
kennedy
thomas
joined
thomas
filed
concurring
opinion
post
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
souter
filed
dissenting
opinion
blackmun
stevens
joined
post
michael
tigar
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
jeffrey
pokorak
charles
palmer
assistant
attorney
general
texas
argued
cause
respondent
brief
dan
morales
attorney
general
william
zapalac
assistant
attorney
general
pryor
first
assistant
attorney
general
mary
keller
deputy
attorney
general
michael
hodge
assistant
attorney
general
steven
rosenfeld
allen
cazier
filed
brief
miguel
richardson
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
justice
white
delivered
opinion
case
asked
decide
whether
jury
sentenced
petitioner
gary
graham
death
able
give
effect
consistent
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
mitigating
evidence
graham
youth
family
background
positive
character
traits
case
comes
us
collateral
review
however
must
first
decide
whether
relief
petitioner
seeks
require
announcement
new
rule
constitutional
law
contravention
principles
set
forth
teague
lane
concluding
graham
claim
barred
teague
affirm
night
may
graham
accosted
bobby
grant
lambert
parking
lot
houston
texas
grocery
store
attempted
grab
wallet
lambert
resisted
graham
drew
pistol
shot
death
five
months
later
jury
rejected
graham
defense
mistaken
identity
convicted
capital
murder
violation
tex
penal
code
ann
sentencing
phase
graham
trial
state
offered
evidence
graham
murder
lambert
commenced
week
violent
attacks
graham
committed
string
robberies
several
assaults
one
rape
graham
contest
evidence
rather
mitigation
defense
offered
testimony
graham
stepfather
grandmother
concerning
upbringing
positive
character
traits
stepfather
joe
samby
testified
graham
lived
worked
natural
father
typically
visited
mother
twice
week
real
nice
respectable
person
samby
testified
graham
pitch
family
chores
graham
father
two
young
children
buy
clothes
children
try
give
food
graham
grandmother
emma
chron
testified
graham
lived
throughout
childhood
mother
hospitalized
periodically
nervous
condition
chron
also
stated
never
known
graham
violent
disrespectful
attended
church
regularly
growing
loved
lord
closing
arguments
jury
defense
counsel
depicted
graham
criminal
behavior
aberrational
urged
jury
take
graham
youth
account
deciding
punishment
accord
capital
sentencing
statute
effect
graham
jury
instructed
answer
three
special
issues
whether
conduct
defendant
caused
death
deceased
committed
deliberately
reasonable
expectation
death
deceased
another
result
raised
evidence
whether
conduct
defendant
killing
deceased
unreasonable
response
provocation
deceased
art
vernon
jury
unanimously
answered
questions
affirmative
required
statute
sentenced
graham
death
art
texas
criminal
appeals
affirmed
graham
conviction
sentence
unpublished
opinion
graham
unsuccessfully
sought
postconviction
relief
texas
state
courts
following
year
graham
petitioned
writ
habeas
corpus
federal
district
pursuant
contending
inter
alia
sentencing
jury
unable
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
within
confines
statutory
special
issues
district
denied
relief
appeals
fifth
circuit
denied
graham
petition
certificate
probable
cause
appeal
graham
lynaugh
appeals
found
graham
claim
foreclosed
recent
decision
franklin
lynaugh
held
sentencing
jury
fully
able
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
defendant
clean
prison
disciplinary
record
way
answering
texas
special
issues
graham
petition
writ
certiorari
pending
announced
decision
penry
lynaugh
holding
evidence
defendant
mental
retardation
abused
childhood
given
mitigating
effect
jury
within
framework
special
issues
granted
graham
petition
vacated
judgment
remanded
reconsideration
light
penry
graham
lynaugh
remand
divided
panel
appeals
reversed
district
vacated
graham
death
sentence
rehearing
en
banc
appeals
vacated
panel
decision
reinstated
prior
mandate
affirming
district
reviewed
holdings
constitutional
requirement
sentencer
permitted
consider
act
upon
relevant
mitigating
evidence
put
forward
capital
defendant
rejected
graham
claim
merits
noted
upheld
texas
capital
sentencing
statute
facial
attack
jurek
texas
acknowledging
constitutionality
texas
procedures
turns
whether
enumerated
questions
allow
consideration
particularized
mitigating
factors
quoting
jurek
supra
noting
petitioner
jurek
proffered
mitigating
evidence
young
age
employment
history
aid
family
appeals
concluded
least
jurek
must
stand
proposition
mitigating
factors
relative
youth
evidence
reflecting
good
character
traits
steady
employment
helping
others
adequately
covered
second
special
issue
concerning
defendant
risk
future
dangerousness
penry
hold
otherwise
observed
time
new
rule
teague
purposes
ibid
accordingly
ruled
jury
sentenced
graham
give
adequate
mitigating
effect
evidence
youth
unstable
childhood
positive
character
traits
way
answering
texas
special
issues
granted
certiorari
affirm
ii
case
us
graham
petition
writ
federal
habeas
corpus
must
determine
threshold
matter
whether
granting
relief
seeks
create
new
rule
constitutional
law
penry
lynaugh
supra
see
also
teague
lane
plurality
opinion
teague
new
rules
applied
announced
cases
collateral
review
unless
fall
one
two
exceptions
penry
supra
restriction
review
applies
capital
cases
involving
death
penalty
stringer
black
sawyer
smith
saffle
parks
butler
mckellar
holding
constitutes
new
rule
within
meaning
teague
breaks
new
ground
imposes
new
obligation
federal
government
dictated
precedent
existing
time
defendant
conviction
became
final
teague
supra
emphasis
original
dispute
decision
announces
new
rule
expressly
overrules
prior
decision
difficult
determine
whether
announce
new
rule
decision
extends
reasoning
prior
cases
saffle
parks
leading
purpose
federal
habeas
review
ensur
state
courts
conduct
criminal
proceedings
accordance
constitution
interpreted
time
th
ose
proceedings
ibid
held
new
rule
principle
validates
reasonable
good
faith
interpretations
existing
precedents
made
state
courts
butler
mckellar
principle
adheres
even
good
faith
interpretations
shown
contrary
later
decisions
ibid
thus
unless
reasonable
jurists
hearing
petitioner
claim
time
conviction
became
final
felt
compelled
existing
precedent
rule
favor
barred
saffle
parks
supra
petitioner
conviction
sentence
became
final
september
time
filing
petition
certiorari
judgment
affirming
conviction
expired
see
griffith
kentucky
surveying
legal
landscape
existed
conclude
anything
clear
reasonable
jurists
petitioner
sentencing
proceeding
comport
constitution
years
since
furman
georgia
identified
struggled
harmonize
two
competing
commandments
eighth
amendment
one
hand
furman
emphasized
must
limit
channel
discretion
judges
juries
ensure
death
sentences
meted
wantonly
freakishly
stewart
concurring
emphasized
subsequent
cases
must
confer
sentencer
sufficient
discretion
take
account
character
record
individual
offender
circumstances
particular
offense
ensure
death
appropriate
punishment
specific
case
woodson
north
carolina
plurality
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
four
years
furman
day
woodson
announced
jurek
texas
examined
statutory
scheme
graham
sentenced
concluded
struck
appropriate
balance
constitutional
concerns
thus
rejected
attack
entire
statutory
scheme
imposing
death
penalty
particular
attack
special
issues
well
set
arrived
judgment
joint
opinion
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
observed
texas
adopted
list
aggravating
circumstances
justify
imposition
death
penalty
action
narrowing
categories
murders
death
sentence
may
ever
imposed
serves
much
purpose
joint
opinion
went
say
constitutionality
capital
sentencing
system
also
requires
sentencing
authority
consider
mitigating
circumstances
since
texas
statute
speak
mitigating
circumstances
instead
directs
jury
answer
three
questions
constitutionality
texas
procedures
turns
whether
enumerated
questions
allow
consideration
particularized
mitigating
factors
joint
opinion
recognized
texas
criminal
appeals
held
determining
likelihood
defendant
continuing
threat
society
jury
consider
whether
defendant
significant
criminal
record
consider
range
severity
prior
criminal
conduct
look
age
defendant
whether
time
commission
offense
acting
duress
domination
another
also
consider
whether
defendant
extreme
form
mental
emotional
pressure
something
less
perhaps
insanity
emotions
average
man
however
inflamed
withstand
thus
texas
law
essentially
requires
one
five
aggravating
circumstances
found
defendant
found
guilty
capital
murder
considering
whether
impose
death
sentence
jury
may
asked
consider
whatever
evidence
mitigating
circumstances
defense
bring
thus
appears
georgia
florida
texas
capital
sentencing
procedure
guides
focuses
jury
objective
consideration
particularized
circumstances
individual
offense
individual
offender
impose
sentence
death
essential
jury
possible
relevant
information
individual
defendant
whose
fate
must
determine
texas
law
clearly
assures
evidence
adduced
texas
capital
sentencing
procedures
like
georgia
florida
violate
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
narrowing
definition
capital
murder
texas
essentially
said
must
least
one
statutory
aggravating
circumstance
murder
case
death
sentence
may
even
considered
authorizing
defense
bring
jury
separate
sentencing
hearing
whatever
mitigating
circumstances
relating
individual
defendant
adduced
texas
ensured
sentencing
jury
adequate
guidance
enable
perform
sentencing
function
providing
prompt
judicial
review
jury
decision
statewide
jurisdiction
texas
provided
means
promote
evenhanded
rational
consistent
imposition
death
sentences
law
system
serves
assure
sentences
death
wantonly
freakishly
imposed
violate
constitution
furman
georgia
stewart
concurring
two
years
jurek
another
splintered
decision
lockett
ohio
invalidated
ohio
death
penalty
statute
prevented
sentencer
considering
certain
categories
relevant
mitigating
evidence
plurality
consisting
chief
justice
burger
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
stated
constitutional
infirmities
ohio
statute
best
understood
comparing
statutes
upheld
gregg
proffitt
jurek
plurality
proceeded
recounting
process
texas
statute
held
constitutional
jurek
permitted
sentencer
consider
whatever
mitigating
circumstances
defendant
show
emphasizing
individualized
sentencing
decision
essential
capital
cases
plurality
concluded
perfect
procedure
deciding
cases
governmental
authority
used
impose
death
statute
prevents
sentencer
capital
cases
giving
independent
mitigating
weight
aspects
defendant
character
record
circumstances
offense
proffered
mitigation
creates
risk
death
penalty
imposed
spite
factors
may
call
less
severe
penalty
plurality
rule
embraced
majority
four
years
later
eddings
oklahoma
overturned
death
sentence
ground
judge
entered
felt
bound
state
law
disregard
mitigating
evidence
concerning
defendant
troubled
youth
emotional
disturbance
held
ust
state
may
statute
preclude
sentencer
considering
mitigating
factor
neither
may
sentencer
refuse
consider
matter
law
relevant
mitigating
evidence
emphasis
omitted
see
also
hitchcock
dugger
skipper
south
carolina
eddings
opinion
rested
lockett
made
mention
jurek
say
reasonable
jurists
considering
petitioner
claim
felt
cases
dictated
vacatur
petitioner
death
sentence
see
teague
contrary
readers
least
cases
reasonably
read
upholding
constitutional
validity
texas
capital
sentencing
scheme
respect
mitigating
evidence
otherwise
lockett
expressly
embraced
jurek
holding
eddings
signaled
retreat
conclusion
seems
us
reasonable
jurists
found
cases
texas
statute
satisfied
commands
eighth
amendment
permitted
petitioner
place
jury
whatever
mitigating
evidence
show
including
age
focusing
jury
attention
upon
evidence
revealed
defendant
capacity
deliberation
prospects
rehabilitation
find
nothing
recent
cases
extent
relevant
undermine
analysis
franklin
lynaugh
rejected
claim
texas
special
issues
provided
inadequate
vehicle
jury
consideration
evidence
defendant
clean
prison
disciplinary
record
plurality
observed
resolving
second
texas
special
issue
jury
surely
free
weigh
evaluate
petitioner
disciplinary
record
bore
character
character
measured
likely
future
behavior
moreover
plurality
found
unavailing
petitioner
reliance
statement
eddings
sentencing
jury
may
precluded
considering
relevant
mitigating
evidence
statement
leaves
unanswered
question
relevant
lockett
supra
answers
question
least
part
making
clear
state
take
realm
relevant
sentencing
considerations
questions
defendant
character
record
circumstances
offense
lockett
hold
state
role
structuring
giving
shape
jury
consideration
mitigating
factors
citations
omitted
brings
us
penry
lynaugh
upon
petitioner
chiefly
relies
case
overturned
prisoner
death
sentence
finding
texas
special
issues
provided
genuine
opportunity
jury
give
mitigating
effect
evidence
mental
retardation
abused
childhood
considered
factors
mitigating
diminished
defendant
ability
control
impulses
evaluate
consequences
conduct
therefore
reduced
moral
culpability
texas
special
issues
permitted
jury
consider
evidence
necessarily
way
benefit
defendant
although
penry
evidence
mental
impairment
childhood
abuse
indeed
relevance
future
dangerousness
inquiry
relevance
aggravating
penry
mental
retardation
history
abuse
thus
sword
may
diminish
blameworthiness
crime
even
indicates
probability
dangerous
future
whatever
relevance
penry
evidence
may
two
special
issues
tenuous
overcome
aggravating
potential
impossible
give
meaningful
mitigating
effect
penry
evidence
way
answering
special
issues
concluded
penry
constitutionally
entitled
instructions
informing
jury
consider
give
effect
penry
evidence
declining
impose
death
penalty
read
penry
effecting
sea
change
view
constitutionality
former
texas
death
penalty
statute
broadly
suggest
invalidity
special
issues
framework
indeed
reading
penry
inconsistent
conclusion
case
announcing
new
rule
within
meaning
teague
lane
see
penry
supra
explained
subsequent
cases
extent
penry
claim
texas
system
prevented
jury
giving
mitigating
effect
evidence
mental
retardation
abuse
childhood
decision
claim
require
creation
new
rule
surprising
lockett
eddings
command
state
must
allow
jury
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
making
sentencing
decision
penry
contention
texas
barred
jury
acting
contrast
contention
state
altogether
prevented
parks
jury
considering
weighing
giving
effect
mitigating
evidence
parks
put
rather
parks
contention
state
unconstitutionally
limited
manner
mitigating
evidence
may
considered
concluded
former
contention
come
rule
lockett
eddings
latter
saffle
parks
moreover
convinced
penry
extended
cover
sorts
mitigating
evidence
graham
suggests
without
wholesale
abandonment
jurek
perhaps
also
franklin
lynaugh
noted
jurek
reasonably
read
holding
circumstance
youth
given
constitutionally
adequate
consideration
deciding
special
issues
see
reason
regard
circumstances
graham
family
background
positive
character
traits
different
light
graham
evidence
transient
upbringing
otherwise
nonviolent
character
closely
resembles
jurek
evidence
age
employment
history
familial
ties
penry
evidence
mental
retardation
harsh
physical
abuse
dissent
franklin
made
clear
virtually
mitigating
evidence
capable
viewed
bearing
defendant
moral
culpability
apart
relevance
particular
concerns
embodied
texas
special
issues
see
franklin
stevens
dissenting
seems
us
however
reading
penry
petitioner
urges
thereby
holding
defendant
entitled
special
instructions
whenever
offer
mitigating
evidence
arguable
relevance
beyond
special
issues
require
cases
fourth
special
issue
put
jury
mitigating
evidence
whether
relevant
three
questions
lead
believe
death
penalty
imposed
franklin
plurality
rejected
precisely
contention
finding
irreconcilable
holding
jurek
see
franklin
supra
affirm
conclusion
today
accepting
graham
submission
unmistakably
result
new
rule
teague
see
saffle
parks
supra
sum
even
penry
reasonably
read
suggest
graham
mitigating
evidence
adequately
considered
former
texas
procedures
relevant
inquiry
teague
rather
determinative
question
whether
reasonable
jurists
reading
case
law
existed
concluded
graham
sentencing
constitutionally
infirm
say
reasonable
jurists
deemed
compelled
accept
graham
claim
say
even
benefit
subsequent
decision
penry
reasonable
jurists
one
mind
ruling
graham
claim
today
ruling
graham
seeks
therefore
new
rule
teague
decided
relief
graham
seeks
require
announcement
new
rule
teague
next
consider
whether
rule
nonetheless
fall
within
one
two
exceptions
recognized
teague
new
rule
principle
first
exception
permits
retroactive
application
new
rule
rule
places
class
private
conduct
beyond
power
state
proscribe
see
teague
addresses
substantive
categorical
guarante
accorded
constitution
rule
prohibiting
certain
category
punishment
class
defendants
status
offense
saffle
parks
quoting
penry
plainly
exception
application
rule
graham
seeks
neither
decriminalize
class
conduct
prohibit
imposition
capital
punishment
particular
class
persons
second
exception
permits
federal
courts
collateral
review
announce
watershed
rules
criminal
procedure
implicating
fundamental
fairness
accuracy
criminal
proceeding
ibid
whatever
precise
scope
exception
clearly
meant
apply
small
core
rules
requiring
observance
procedures
implicit
concept
ordered
liberty
teague
supra
quoting
mackey
harlan
concurring
judgments
part
dissenting
part
turn
quoting
palko
connecticut
see
also
butler
mckellar
supra
plurality
cautioned
teague
ecause
operate
premise
procedures
central
accurate
determination
innocence
guilt
believe
unlikely
many
components
basic
due
process
yet
emerge
believe
denying
graham
special
jury
instructions
concerning
mitigating
evidence
youth
family
background
positive
character
traits
seriously
diminish
ed
likelihood
obtaining
accurate
determination
sentencing
proceeding
see
butler
mckellar
supra
accordingly
find
second
teague
exception
inapplicable
well
judgment
appeals
therefore
affirmed
footnotes
penry
held
result
dictated
prior
decisions
eddings
oklahoma
lockett
ohio
plurality
opinion
within
sense
required
teague
lane
thus
rule
applied
cases
collateral
review
see
penry
contrary
made
clear
case
limited
nature
question
presented
penry
challenge
facial
validity
texas
death
penalty
statute
upheld
eighth
amendment
challenge
jurek
texas
dispute
types
mitigating
evidence
fully
considered
sentencer
absence
special
jury
instructions
see
franklin
lynaugh
plurality
opinion
concurring
judgment
instead
penry
argues
facts
case
jury
unable
fully
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
mental
retardation
abused
background
answering
three
special
issues
justice
thomas
concurring
deciding
case
basis
teague
lane
hac
avoided
direct
reconsideration
penry
lynaugh
join
opinion
agree
holding
sought
graham
compelled
cases
upon
penry
rests
therefore
adopted
new
rule
teague
purposes
write
separately
however
make
clear
believe
penry
wrongly
decided
several
members
commented
tension
cases
constitutional
relevance
mitigating
circumstances
capital
sentencing
decisions
applying
principle
first
articulated
furman
georgia
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
prohibit
giving
sentencers
unguided
discretion
imposing
death
penalty
franklin
lynaugh
plurality
opinion
california
brown
concurring
mccleskey
kemp
blackmun
dissenting
view
texas
largely
resolved
tension
use
three
special
issues
repeatedly
approved
penry
however
war
former
texas
scheme
extreme
statement
mitigating
line
penry
creates
unavoidable
tension
presents
evident
danger
important
recall
motivated
members
genesis
modern
capital
punishment
case
law
furman
georgia
decided
atmosphere
suffused
concern
race
bias
administration
death
penalty
particularly
southern
particularly
rape
cases
three
petitioners
black
lucious
jackson
black
man
sentenced
death
georgia
raping
white
woman
elmer
branch
sentenced
death
texas
rape
white
widow
william
henry
furman
faced
death
penalty
georgia
unintentionally
killing
white
homeowner
burglary
see
douglas
concurring
opinion
concurring
judgment
death
penalty
cases
unconstitutional
justice
douglas
stressed
potential
role
racial
illegitimate
prejudices
system
sentencing
juries
boundless
discretion
thought
cruel
unusual
apply
death
penalty
selectively
minorities
society
willing
see
suffer
though
countenance
general
application
penalty
across
board
citing
studies
reports
suggesting
death
sentence
disproportionately
imposed
carried
poor
negro
members
unpopular
groups
especially
cases
rape
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
justice
douglas
concluded
discretion
judges
juries
imposing
death
penalty
enables
penalty
selectively
applied
feeding
prejudices
accused
poor
despised
lacking
political
clout
member
suspect
unpopular
minority
saving
social
position
may
protected
position
unquestionable
importance
race
furman
reflected
fact
three
original
four
petitioners
furman
cases
represented
naacp
legal
defense
educational
fund
inc
representation
part
concerted
national
litigative
campaign
constitutionality
death
penalty
waged
small
number
ambitious
lawyers
academics
fund
behalf
burt
disorder
death
penalty
constitution
although
efforts
began
rather
modestly
assisting
indigent
black
defendants
isolated
criminal
cases
usually
rape
cases
racial
discrimination
suspected
lawyers
fund
ultimately
devised
implemented
without
prompting
strategy
litigation
death
penalty
see
generally
meltsner
cruel
unusual
capital
punishment
hereinafter
meltsner
muller
legal
defense
fund
capital
punishment
campaign
distorting
influence
death
yale
rev
campaign
part
larger
movement
carried
abolitionist
lawyers
whose
agenda
social
legal
change
depended
activist
judiciary
unmistakable
preference
courts
especially
federal
courts
came
direct
response
willingness
redraw
america
ethical
legal
map
task
statehouses
executive
mansions
slow
tackle
meltsner
mustering
every
conceivable
argument
ethical
legal
polemical
theological
speculative
statistical
abolishing
capital
punishment
fund
lawyers
civil
rights
advocates
supplied
empirical
rhetorical
support
observations
justice
douglas
marshall
stewart
respect
race
bias
see
brief
petitioner
aikens
california
pp
brief
petitioner
jackson
georgia
racial
figures
men
executed
crime
rape
since
follows
white
negro
georgia
figures
white
negro
footnotes
omitted
see
also
brief
naacp
et
al
amici
curiae
aikens
california
supra
app
discussing
particular
history
south
use
death
penalty
rape
cases
prior
civil
war
typical
rapes
attempted
rapes
committed
black
men
upon
white
women
punishable
mandatory
death
castration
rapes
committed
whites
punishable
death
brief
synagogue
council
america
et
al
amici
curiae
aikens
california
supra
positive
relationship
death
penalty
race
strong
crime
involved
rape
particularly
two
present
cases
rape
white
women
negroes
relationship
almost
end
justice
douglas
members
concluded
say
facts
disclosed
records
defendants
sentenced
death
black
furman
douglas
concurring
see
stewart
concurring
racial
discrimination
proved
focused
generally
uncontrolled
discretion
placed
judges
juries
unbridled
discretion
argued
practically
invited
sentencers
vent
personal
prejudices
deciding
fate
accused
see
brief
petitioner
furman
georgia
jury
knew
nothing
else
man
sentenced
except
age
race
laws
standards
govern
selection
penalty
people
live
die
dependent
whim
one
man
douglas
concurring
justice
stewart
observed
petitioners
among
capriciously
selected
random
handful
upon
sentence
death
fact
imposed
concluded
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
tolerate
sentencing
procedures
allow
penalty
wantonly
freakishly
inflicted
concurring
opinion
practice
delegating
unguided
authority
practice
largely
motivated
desire
mitigate
harshness
law
bring
community
judgment
bear
sentence
actually
allowed
jury
discretion
without
violating
trust
statutory
policy
refuse
impose
death
penalty
matter
circumstances
crime
white
concurring
sum
concluded
standardless
sentencing
scheme
rational
basis
justice
brennan
put
distinguish
die
many
go
prison
concurring
opinion
see
also
white
concurring
meaningful
basis
distinguishing
doubted
behind
condemnation
unguided
discretion
lay
specter
racial
prejudice
paradigmatic
capricious
irrational
sentencing
factor
inception
mitigating
line
cases
sprang
part
concerns
underlay
furman
response
furman
enacted
new
death
penalty
statutes
see
gregg
georgia
joint
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
five
cases
decided
single
day
passed
constitutionality
representative
sample
new
laws
principal
opinion
case
joint
opinion
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
lead
case
gregg
georgia
justices
squarely
rejected
argument
death
penalty
cruel
unusual
circumstances
rather
focused
capital
sentencing
procedures
distilling
furman
two
complementary
rationalizing
principles
sentencing
discretion
discretion
given
sentencer
must
directed
limited
avoid
wholly
arbitrary
capricious
action
gregg
discretion
must
exercised
informed
manner
ibid
furman
read
holding
minimize
risk
death
penalty
imposed
capriciously
selected
group
offenders
decision
impose
ha
guided
standards
sentencing
authority
focus
particularized
circumstances
crime
defendant
gregg
jury
given
guidance
regarding
factors
crime
defendant
state
representing
organized
society
deems
particularly
relevant
sentencing
decision
otherwise
system
function
consistent
rational
manner
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
gregg
requirement
sentencer
guided
information
particular
defendant
particular
circumstances
crime
words
traditionally
accepted
sentencing
criteria
see
added
second
dimension
furman
rule
discretion
jury
discretion
must
focused
rational
factors
decision
based
information
circumstances
crime
accused
individual
merely
member
group
furman
example
jury
given
almost
particularized
information
accused
furman
jury
knew
black
according
statement
trial
years
old
worked
superior
upholstery
took
jury
one
hour
minutes
return
verdict
guilt
sentence
death
furman
brennan
concurring
citations
omitted
moreover
irrelevant
jury
determination
killing
committed
furman
accidental
ibid
without
focus
characteristics
defendant
circumstances
crime
uninformed
jury
tempted
resort
irrational
considerations
class
race
animus
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
applied
principles
upholding
guided
discretion
procedures
georgia
florida
texas
striking
mandatory
death
penalty
provisions
north
carolina
louisiana
georgia
florida
texas
schemes
held
constitutional
guide
focuse
jury
objective
consideration
particularized
circumstances
individual
offense
individual
offender
jurek
texas
joint
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
essential
factor
jury
ha
possible
relevant
information
individual
defendant
whose
fate
must
determine
moreover
georgia
statute
featured
important
additional
safeguard
arbitrariness
caprice
provision
automatic
appeal
death
sentence
required
state
determine
inter
alia
whether
sentence
imposed
influence
passion
prejudice
whether
disproportionate
sentences
imposed
similar
cases
gregg
supra
mandatory
death
penalty
statutes
hand
held
violate
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
three
reasons
first
justices
believed
mandatory
death
penalty
departed
contemporary
standards
punishment
woodson
north
carolina
plurality
opinion
second
experience
suggested
statutes
simply
papered
problem
unguided
unchecked
jury
discretion
provoking
arbitrary
jury
nullification
thus
nstead
rationalizing
sentencing
process
mandatory
scheme
may
well
exacerbate
problem
identified
furman
resting
penalty
determination
particular
jury
willingness
act
lawlessly
see
roberts
louisiana
plurality
opinion
third
mandatory
nature
penalty
prevented
sentencer
considering
character
record
individual
offender
circumstances
particular
offense
thus
treated
convicted
persons
uniquely
individual
human
beings
members
faceless
undifferentiated
mass
woodson
supra
latter
concern
echoed
justice
douglas
suggestion
sentences
death
might
fallen
disproportionately
upon
member
suspect
unpopular
minority
furman
supra
one
think
however
eliminating
explicit
jury
discretion
treating
defendants
equally
mandatory
death
penalty
scheme
perfectly
reasonable
legislative
response
concerns
expressed
furman
see
roberts
supra
white
dissenting
see
also
walton
arizona
scalia
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
justice
white
surely
correct
concluding
state
constitutionally
forbidden
provide
commission
certain
crimes
conclusively
establishes
criminal
character
deserves
death
roberts
supra
see
also
roberts
louisiana
rehnquist
dissenting
sumner
shuman
white
dissenting
also
agree
plurality
woodson
roberts
erred
equating
raw
power
jury
nullification
unlimited
sentencing
discretion
condemned
furman
roberts
supra
white
dissenting
curious
counterintuitive
outcomes
cases
upholding
sentences
death
imposed
statutes
explicitly
preserved
sentencer
discretion
vacating
imposed
mandatory
provisions
precisely
perceived
potential
arbitrary
uninformed
discretion
might
measure
attributable
powerful
influence
racial
concerns
may
confronted
mandatory
sentencing
provision
occasion
flesh
disagreement
prohibition
schemes
significant
point
present
purposes
woodson
sumner
invalidation
mandatory
death
penalty
guaranteed
sentencers
exercise
degree
discretion
every
capital
case
precedents
turn
exercise
discretion
unavoidably
bound
two
requirements
furman
identified
gregg
first
foremost
sentencing
authority
provided
standards
guide
use
information
developed
sentencing
second
support
principle
sentencer
apprised
information
relevant
imposition
sentence
gregg
discovering
two
requirements
constitution
ensuring
woodson
progeny
always
play
put
seemingly
permanent
business
supervising
capital
sentencing
procedures
better
view
cruel
unusual
punishments
clause
intended
place
substantive
limitations
punishments
procedural
requirements
sentencing
see
hudson
mcmillian
thomas
dissenting
gardner
florida
rehnquist
dissenting
stare
decisis
requires
make
efforts
adhere
eighth
amendment
precedents
see
walton
arizona
supra
scalia
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
mitigating
branch
death
penalty
jurisprudence
began
outgrowth
second
two
requirements
plurality
conclusion
lockett
ohio
sentencer
capital
case
must
precluded
considering
mitigating
factor
aspect
defendant
character
record
circumstances
offense
opinion
burger
emphasis
deleted
effectively
guarantees
sentencer
access
categories
information
favorable
defendant
thus
lockett
built
premise
given
credence
gregg
sentencing
discretion
granted
generally
agreed
sentencing
judge
possession
fullest
information
possible
concerning
defendant
life
characteristics
ighly
relevant
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
sentencing
statute
issue
lockett
failed
satisfy
requirement
plurality
view
eliminated
jury
consideration
significant
facts
defendant
comparatively
minor
role
offense
adoption
eddings
oklahoma
lockett
rule
corollary
sentencer
may
categorically
refuse
consider
relevant
mitigating
circumstances
drew
upon
gregg
notion
capital
sentencing
less
likely
arbitrary
jury
exercise
discretion
focused
particularized
circumstances
offender
crime
see
eddings
supra
relying
gregg
supra
therefore
although
said
lockett
eddings
represent
return
days
lockett
supra
white
concurring
part
dissenting
part
concurring
judgments
root
logical
attenuated
connection
rationalizing
principle
furman
prophylactic
rule
eddings
eddings
protects
accused
opportunity
appris
jury
version
information
relevant
sentencing
decision
early
mitigating
cases
may
thus
read
little
safeguarding
adversary
process
sentencing
proceedings
conferring
defendant
affirmative
right
place
relevant
evidence
sentencer
see
skipper
south
carolina
cf
comparing
eddings
elemental
due
process
requirement
defendant
sentenced
death
basis
information
opportunity
deny
explain
gardner
florida
consistent
admittedly
narrow
reading
describe
eddings
kind
rule
evidence
governs
admissibility
proffered
evidence
purport
define
substantive
standards
criteria
sentencers
apply
considering
facts
requiring
sentencers
allowed
consider
relevant
mitigating
circumstances
mean
decision
whether
impose
death
penalty
must
based
upon
defendant
evidence
evidence
must
considered
way
defendant
wishes
mean
say
circumstances
necessarily
relevant
constitutional
purposes
conceivable
mitigating
value
application
eddings
eclipse
primary
imperative
furman
state
define
relevant
sentencing
criteria
provide
rational
standards
guide
sentencer
use
evidence
aspect
furman
must
operate
part
independently
eddings
rule
essential
effectiveness
furman
since
providing
relevant
information
sentencer
consideration
nothing
avoid
central
danger
sentencing
discretion
may
exercised
irrationally
realize
course
eddings
susceptible
expansive
interpretations
see
walton
scalia
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
eddings
rule
completely
exploded
whatever
coherence
notion
guided
discretion
making
random
mitigation
constitutional
requirement
mccleskey
kemp
limit
sentencer
consideration
relevant
circumstance
cause
decline
impose
death
penalty
respect
state
channel
sentencer
discretion
must
allow
consider
relevant
information
offered
defendant
even
narrow
reading
eddings
still
tension
case
law
eddings
implies
something
outer
boundary
primary
furman
principle
sentencing
standards
chosen
state
may
stingy
prevent
altogether
consideration
constitutionally
relevant
mitigating
evidence
exception
penry
lynaugh
recent
mitigating
cases
careful
read
eddings
narrowly
effort
accommodate
competing
commandments
eddings
furman
ante
held
must
free
channel
direct
sentencer
consideration
evidence
whether
mitigating
aggravating
bears
sentencing
provided
state
categorically
preclude
sentencer
considering
constitutionally
relevant
mitigating
circumstances
see
walton
supra
constitutional
requirement
unfettered
sentencing
discretion
jury
free
structure
shape
consideration
mitigating
evidence
effort
achieve
rational
equitable
administration
death
penalty
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
boyde
california
effect
franklin
lynaugh
plurality
opinion
see
also
walton
supra
requirement
individualized
sentencing
capital
cases
satisfied
long
state
altogether
prevent
sentencer
considering
type
relevant
mitigating
evidence
blystone
pennsylvania
saffle
parks
understanding
preserves
original
rationale
upholding
texas
sentencing
statute
guides
focuses
jury
objective
consideration
particularized
circumstances
allowing
defendant
bring
jury
attention
whatever
relevant
mitigating
circumstances
may
able
show
jurek
thus
reaffirming
constitutionality
texas
system
special
issues
expressed
satisfaction
former
texas
scheme
successfully
reconciled
tension
exists
eddings
furman
see
franklin
lynaugh
supra
plurality
opinion
context
texas
system
therefore
unprepared
present
sweep
away
entire
mitigating
line
precedent
token
however
expansive
reading
eddings
ultimately
prevail
forced
conclude
eddings
rule
construed
truly
rationally
irreconcilable
furman
basis
deserving
rejection
see
walton
supra
scalia
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
ii
unfortunately
narrow
reading
eddings
virtually
impossible
penry
whatever
contribution
rationality
consistency
made
furman
taken
back
penry
process
upset
careful
balance
texas
achieved
use
special
issues
penry
held
texas
special
issues
allow
jury
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
mental
retardation
childhood
abuse
even
though
defendant
full
unfettered
opportunity
present
evidence
jury
evidence
relevance
penry
moral
culpability
beyond
scope
special
issues
emphasis
added
thus
persuaded
jury
might
unable
express
reasoned
moral
response
evidence
determining
whether
death
appropriate
punishment
ibid
emphasis
added
see
post
contrary
dissent
view
see
post
notions
defendant
may
sentenced
death
mitigating
circumstances
whose
relevance
goes
beyond
scope
state
sentencing
criteria
jury
must
able
express
reasoned
moral
response
evidence
presented
pedigree
prior
holdings
originated
entirely
whole
cloth
two
recent
concurring
opinions
see
franklin
supra
concurring
judgment
california
brown
concurring
together
notions
render
meaningless
rational
standards
state
may
channel
focus
jury
discretion
thus
negate
central
tenet
furman
death
penalty
cases
since
penry
imposes
constitutional
imperative
scheme
simply
dumps
jury
sympathetic
factors
bearing
upon
defendant
background
character
circumstances
offense
jury
may
decide
without
guidance
whether
defendant
deserves
death
penry
scalia
concurring
part
dissenting
part
unguided
emotional
moral
response
demands
allowed
outpouring
personal
reaction
circumstances
defendant
life
personality
unfocused
sympathy
ibid
justice
souter
reading
penry
bears
fears
dissent
require
special
issues
construed
enough
scope
allow
full
consideration
mitigating
potential
post
jury
free
give
full
effect
defendant
sympathetic
evidence
purposes
including
purposes
specifically
permitted
questions
post
internal
quotation
marks
emphasis
omitted
determination
death
fitting
punishment
particular
crime
necessarily
moral
one
whether
made
jury
judge
legislature
beware
word
moral
used
opinion
word
vessel
nearly
infinite
capacity
may
allow
sentencer
express
benevolence
may
allow
cloak
latent
animus
judgment
consider
moral
response
may
secretly
based
caprice
even
outright
prejudice
review
death
penalty
procedures
turns
whether
jurors
give
full
mitigating
effect
defendant
background
character
post
whether
juries
free
disregard
state
chosen
sentencing
criteria
return
verdict
majority
label
moral
thrown
open
back
door
arbitrary
irrational
sentencing
see
penry
supra
scalia
concurring
part
dissenting
part
decision
whether
impose
death
penalty
unitary
one
unguided
discretion
impose
unguided
discretion
impose
well
holding
jury
free
deem
penry
mental
retardation
sad
childhood
relevant
whatever
purpose
wished
come
full
circle
permitting
requiring
furman
condemned
penry
denied
holding
signaled
return
unbridled
jury
discretion
reasoned
long
class
murderers
subject
capital
punishment
narrowed
constitutional
infirmity
procedure
allows
jury
recommend
mercy
based
mitigating
evidence
introduced
defendant
citing
gregg
joint
opinion
white
concurring
judgment
cf
mccleskey
kemp
discussing
benefits
defendant
discretionary
leniency
thus
dissent
suggests
state
sufficiently
narrowed
class
murderers
jury
discretion
select
individuals
favored
live
must
remain
effectively
unbounded
see
post
turns
reason
head
however
argue
approved
sentencing
systems
continue
permit
juries
exercise
degree
discretionary
leniency
eighth
amendment
necessarily
requires
discretion
unguided
unlimited
respect
class
murderers
subject
capital
punishment
withhold
death
penalty
sympathy
defendant
member
favored
group
different
decision
impose
penalty
basis
negative
bias
matters
narrow
class
defendants
crimes
surely
exactly
petitioners
legal
defense
fund
argued
woodson
roberts
see
supra
manifest
power
lenient
also
power
discriminate
mccleskey
kemp
supra
quoting
davis
discretionary
justice
see
also
roberts
white
dissenting
undeniable
unfettered
discretion
jury
save
defendant
death
major
contributing
factor
developments
led
us
invalidate
death
penalty
furman
consistently
recognized
discretion
accord
mercy
even
largely
motivated
desire
mitigate
indistinguishable
discretion
impose
death
penalty
furman
white
concurring
condemning
unguided
discretion
allows
jury
refuse
impose
death
penalty
matter
circumstances
crime
emphasis
added
see
also
jurek
white
concurring
judgment
texas
scheme
constitutional
extend
juries
discretionary
power
dispense
mercy
roberts
supra
joint
opinion
louisiana
statute
plainly
invites
jurors
choose
verdict
lesser
offense
whenever
feel
death
penalty
inappropriate
reason
twice
refused
disapprove
instructions
directing
jurors
swayed
mere
sympathy
emphasized
instructions
foste
eighth
amendment
need
reliability
determination
death
appropriate
punishment
specific
case
california
brown
quoting
woodson
joint
opinion
accord
saffle
parks
whether
juror
feels
sympathy
capital
defendant
likely
depend
juror
emotions
actual
evidence
regarding
crime
defendant
difficult
reconcile
rule
allowing
fate
defendant
turn
vagaries
particular
jurors
emotional
sensitivities
longstanding
recognition
capital
sentencing
must
reliable
accurate
penry
reintroduces
risks
sought
eliminate
simple
directive
events
provide
rational
standards
capital
sentencing
years
acknowledged
relationship
undirected
jury
discretion
danger
discriminatory
sentencing
danger
held
inconsistent
eighth
amendment
single
holding
much
violence
many
settled
precedents
area
fundamental
constitutional
law
command
force
stare
decisis
view
penry
overruled
iii
major
emphasis
throughout
eighth
amendment
jurisprudence
reasoned
rather
moral
sentencing
continually
sought
verify
capital
procedures
provide
rational
basis
predictably
determining
defendants
shall
sentenced
death
furman
supra
brennan
concurring
see
also
spaziano
florida
california
brown
supra
barclay
florida
stevens
concurring
judgment
constant
theme
cases
emphasis
procedural
protections
intended
ensure
death
penalty
imposed
consistent
rational
manner
mccleskey
kemp
brennan
dissenting
oncern
arbitrariness
focuses
rationality
system
whole
system
features
significant
probability
sentencing
decisions
influenced
impermissible
considerations
regarded
rational
absence
mandatory
sentencing
one
means
satisfying
furman
demands
providing
objective
standards
ensure
sentencer
discretion
guided
channeled
examination
specific
factors
proffitt
florida
joint
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
rule
eddings
may
important
procedural
safeguard
complements
furman
eddings
promote
consistency
much
less
rationality
quite
opposite
penry
demonstrates
imperative
therefore
give
full
effect
standards
designed
state
legislatures
focusing
sentencer
deliberations
long
since
settled
question
constitutionality
death
penalty
recognized
capital
punishment
expression
society
moral
outrage
particularly
offensive
conduct
process
channeling
th
instinct
retribution
administration
criminal
justice
serves
important
purpose
promoting
stability
society
governed
law
gregg
joint
opinion
quoting
furman
supra
stewart
concurring
death
penalty
constitutional
must
surely
able
administer
pursuant
rational
procedures
comport
eighth
amendment
basic
requirements
view
enforce
permanent
truce
eddings
furman
need
conclude
consistent
eighth
amendment
channel
sentencer
consideration
defendant
arguably
mitigating
evidence
limit
relevance
evidence
reasonable
manner
long
state
deny
defendant
full
fair
opportunity
apprise
sentencer
constitutionally
relevant
circumstances
three
texas
special
issues
easily
satisfy
standard
providing
juries
consider
mitigating
circumstances
insofar
bear
upon
deliberateness
future
dangerousness
provocation
texas
adopted
rational
scheme
meets
two
concerns
eighth
amendment
jurisprudence
penry
scalia
concurring
part
dissenting
part
predicate
moreover
believe
leave
elected
state
legislators
representing
organized
society
decide
factors
particularly
relevant
sentencing
decision
gregg
supra
although
lockett
eddings
indicate
general
matter
state
take
realm
relevant
sentencing
considerations
questions
defendant
character
record
circumstances
offense
hold
state
role
structuring
giving
shape
jury
consideration
mitigating
factors
franklin
lynaugh
plurality
ultimately
must
come
back
recognition
retain
traditional
authority
determine
particular
evidence
within
broad
categories
described
lockett
eddings
relevant
first
instance
skipper
south
carolina
powell
concurring
judgment
quoting
lockett
since
special
expertise
deciding
whether
particular
categories
evidence
speculative
insubstantial
merit
consideration
sentencer
accordingly
also
propose
appropriate
role
review
reasonableness
state
determinations
specific
circumstances
within
broad
bounds
general
categories
mandated
eddings
relevant
capital
sentencing
every
month
defendants
claim
special
victimization
file
petitions
certiorari
ask
us
declare
new
class
evidence
mitigating
relevance
beyond
scope
state
sentencing
criteria
may
evidence
voluntary
intoxication
drug
use
even
astonishingly
evidence
defendant
suffers
chronic
antisocial
personality
disorder
sociopath
see
pet
cert
demouchette
collins
cert
denied
carry
business
makes
mockery
concerns
racial
discrimination
inspired
decision
furman
reasons
disturb
effectiveness
texas
former
system
decided
two
cases
together
furman
georgia
jackson
georgia
branch
texas
fourth
case
aikens
california
argued
furman
dismissed
moot
furman
surprised
discover
victim
home
trying
escape
accidentally
tripped
wire
causing
pistol
fire
single
shot
closed
door
thereby
killing
victim
see
brennan
concurring
according
published
account
one
legal
defense
fund
lawyer
participated
campaign
fund
though
experience
racial
discrimination
rape
cases
south
seriously
consider
broader
offensive
death
penalty
three
members
opinion
dissenting
denial
certiorari
offered
strong
foundation
strategy
meltsner
see
rudolph
alabama
goldberg
joined
douglas
brennan
dissenting
denial
cert
calling
decide
whether
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
permit
imposition
death
penalty
convicted
rapist
neither
taken
endangered
human
life
suggesting
several
lines
argument
form
questions
seem
relevant
worthy
consideration
see
also
meltsner
awyers
attempting
thrust
egalitarian
humanitarian
reforms
reluctant
society
prefer
use
courts
federal
judges
somewhat
insulated
ebb
flow
political
power
public
opinion
legislators
executives
federal
government
later
acknowledged
southern
data
revealed
among
convicted
rape
blacks
selected
disproportionately
death
sentence
app
brief
amicus
curiae
gregg
georgia
furthermore
government
stated
question
conclusion
years
question
southern
discrimination
rape
cases
eventually
struck
death
penalty
convicted
rapists
eighth
amendment
basis
discriminatory
application
excessive
disproportionate
punishment
coker
georgia
gregg
georgia
proffitt
florida
jurek
texas
woodson
north
carolina
roberts
louisiana
furman
naacp
legal
defense
fund
represented
three
petitioners
woodson
roberts
black
addition
contending
death
penalty
cruel
unusual
punishment
fund
lawyers
argued
cases
despite
mandatory
nature
north
carolina
louisiana
statutes
process
imposing
penalty
petitioners
infected
key
junctures
potential
selective
discriminatory
discretion
importantly
possibility
sentencing
juries
cases
involving
sympathetic
defendants
acquit
convict
lesser
charges
see
brief
petitioners
woodson
north
carolina
pp
brief
petitioner
roberts
louisiana
pp
unsuccessful
petitioners
gregg
proffitt
jurek
white
see
brief
amicus
curiae
gregg
georgia
lockett
aided
abetted
armed
robbery
resulted
murder
drove
getaway
car
carry
robbery
intend
bring
murder
see
blackmun
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
lockett
represented
lawyers
legal
defense
fund
represented
petitioners
furman
woodson
roberts
texas
special
issues
involved
considerably
better
job
rationalizing
sentencing
discretion
even
elaborate
georgia
system
approved
gregg
juries
still
retained
power
return
sentence
life
rather
death
reason
whatever
simply
based
upon
subjective
notions
right
wrong
woodson
rehnquist
dissenting
regrettable
predictable
consequence
penry
lynaugh
texas
legislature
since
amended
sentencing
statute
invites
jury
react
subjectively
circumstances
including
personal
moral
culpability
defendant
see
art
vernon
supp
applicable
offenses
committed
september
indeed
argued
already
implicitly
overruled
penry
significant
respects
saffle
parks
gave
dramatically
narrow
reading
penry
reaffirming
lockett
ohio
eddings
oklahoma
state
free
limi
manner
defendant
mitigating
evidence
may
considered
boyde
california
expressly
rejected
significance
penry
conclusion
reasonable
juror
well
believed
vehicle
expressing
view
penry
deserve
sentenced
death
based
upon
mitigating
evidence
emphasis
original
quoting
penry
supra
boyde
held
instead
jury
instruction
run
afoul
eddings
reasonable
likelihood
jury
applied
challenged
instruction
way
prevents
consideration
constitutionally
relevant
evidence
made
clear
capital
sentencing
proceeding
inconsistent
eighth
amendment
possibility
inhibition
federal
sentencing
reform
act
example
congress
instructed
sentencing
commission
study
difficult
question
whether
certain
specified
offender
characteristics
relevance
sentencing
response
directive
sentencing
commission
issued
guidelines
providing
among
things
race
sex
national
origin
creed
religion
socioeconomic
status
relevant
determination
sentence
sentencing
commission
guidelines
manual
congress
also
concluded
defendant
education
vocational
skills
employment
record
family
community
ties
inappropriate
sentencing
factors
thus
sentencing
guidelines
declare
factors
ordinarily
relevant
determining
whether
sentence
outside
applicable
guideline
range
see
ussg
ch
pt
intro
comment
similar
guidelines
seems
applied
capital
sentencing
consistent
eighth
amendment
long
contributed
rationalization
process
justice
stevens
dissenting
neither
race
defendant
race
victim
play
part
decision
impose
death
sentence
justice
thomas
points
reason
believe
imperative
routinely
violated
years
first
held
capital
punishment
may
violate
eighth
amendment
racial
discrimination
infected
administration
death
penalty
particularly
southern
particularly
rape
cases
ante
concurring
opinion
justice
thomas
surely
correct
concern
racial
discrimination
played
significant
role
development
modern
capital
sentencing
jurisprudence
ante
agree
justice
thomas
remarkable
suggestion
decision
penry
lynaugh
somehow
threatens
progress
made
eliminating
racial
discrimination
arbitrary
considerations
capital
sentencing
determination
recent
years
capital
punishment
cases
erected
four
important
safeguards
arbitrary
imposition
death
penalty
first
notwithstanding
minority
view
proportionality
play
part
analysis
concluded
death
impermissible
punishment
certain
offenses
specifically
neither
crime
rape
kind
unintentional
homicide
referred
justice
thomas
ante
may
support
death
sentence
see
enmund
florida
coker
georgia
second
corollary
proportionality
requirement
demanded
narrow
class
individuals
eligible
death
penalty
either
statutory
definitions
capital
murder
statutory
specification
aggravating
circumstances
narrowing
requirement
like
categorical
exclusion
offense
rape
significantly
minimized
risk
racial
bias
sentencing
process
indeed
pointed
dissent
mccleskey
kemp
strong
empirical
evidence
adequate
narrowing
class
offenders
eradicate
significant
risk
bias
imposition
death
penalty
third
condemned
use
aggravating
factors
vague
actually
enhance
risk
unguided
discretion
control
sentencing
determination
see
maynard
cartwright
invalidating
especially
heinous
atrocious
cruel
aggravating
circumstance
godfrey
georgia
invalidating
outrageously
wantonly
vile
horrible
inhuman
aggravating
circumstance
aggravating
factor
invites
judgment
whether
murder
committed
member
another
race
especially
heinous
inhuman
may
increase
rather
decrease
chance
arbitrary
decisionmaking
creating
room
influence
personal
prejudices
view
aggravating
factors
fail
cabin
sentencer
discretion
determination
pose
evident
danger
justice
thomas
warns
see
ante
finally
end
process
dealing
narrow
class
offenders
deemed
insist
sentencer
permitted
give
effect
relevant
mitigating
evidence
offered
defendant
making
final
sentencing
determination
see
eddings
oklahoma
lockett
ohio
already
explained
view
class
offenders
sufficiently
narrowed
consideration
relevant
individual
mitigating
circumstances
way
compromises
rationalizing
principle
ante
thomas
concurring
furman
georgia
see
walton
arizona
stevens
dissenting
contrary
requirement
sentencing
decisions
guided
consideration
relevant
mitigating
evidence
reduces
still
chance
decision
based
irrelevant
factors
race
lockett
illustrates
point
young
black
woman
lockett
sentenced
death
ohio
statute
permit
sentencing
judge
consider
mitigating
factors
character
prior
record
age
lack
specific
intent
cause
death
relatively
minor
part
crime
relevant
facts
excluded
sentencing
determination
less
reason
believe
sentencer
left
rely
irrational
considerations
like
racial
animus
remain
committed
mitigating
line
precedent
critical
protection
arbitrary
discriminatory
capital
sentencing
fully
consonant
principles
furman
nothing
justice
thomas
opinion
explains
requirement
sentencing
decisions
based
relevant
mitigating
evidence
applied
penry
increases
risk
decisions
based
irrelevant
factor
race
specifically
see
permitting
full
consideration
defendant
mental
retardation
history
childhood
abuse
penry
defendant
youth
case
way
increases
risk
otherwise
arbitrary
decisionmaking
justice
souter
whose
dissent
join
demonstrated
decision
penry
completely
consistent
capital
sentencing
jurisprudence
view
also
faithful
goal
eradicating
racial
discrimination
capital
sentencing
share
justice
thomas
see
harmelin
michigan
indication
difference
narrowing
make
worthwhile
note
time
decided
furman
georgia
addition
defendants
convicted
murder
almost
defendants
convicted
forcible
rape
armed
robbery
kidnaping
eligible
death
penalty
see
walton
arizona
stevens
dissenting
decision
appears
based
fear
acceptance
mccleskey
claim
sound
death
knell
capital
punishment
georgia
society
indeed
forced
choose
racially
discriminatory
death
penalty
one
provides
heightened
protection
murder
whites
death
penalty
choice
mandated
constitution
plain
fear
unfounded
one
lessons
baldus
study
exist
certain
categories
extremely
serious
crimes
prosecutors
consistently
seek
juries
consistently
impose
death
penalty
without
regard
race
victim
race
offender
georgia
narrow
class
defendants
categories
danger
arbitrary
discriminatory
imposition
death
penalty
significantly
decreased
eradicated
justice
brennan
demonstrated
dissenting
opinion
restructuring
sentencing
scheme
surely
high
price
pay
mccleskey
kemp
stevens
dissenting
internal
citation
omitted
see
brief
petitioner
locket
ohio
justice
souter
justice
blackmun
justice
stevens
justice
join
dissenting
penry
lynaugh
concluded
petitioner
seek
benefit
new
rule
claiming
texas
special
issues
permit
sentencing
jury
case
give
full
mitigating
effect
certain
mitigating
evidence
therefore
held
retroactivity
doctrine
announced
teague
lane
plurality
opinion
bar
claim
see
distinctions
claim
penry
presented
go
kind
mitigating
evidence
presented
jury
consideration
distance
texas
scheme
stops
short
allowing
full
effect
given
evidence
considered
neither
distinction
makes
difference
penry
prior
law
penry
stands
accordingly
find
bar
present
claims
reach
merits
whether
mitigating
force
petitioner
youth
unfortunate
background
traits
decent
character
considered
adequately
jury
instructed
three
texas
special
issues
conclude
reverse
sentence
death
remand
resentencing
contrary
judgment
respectfully
dissent
doctrine
teague
lane
supra
state
prisoner
seeking
federal
habeas
relief
may
receive
retroactive
benefit
new
rule
law
proven
hard
apply
explained
crucial
term
number
ways
justice
wrote
teague
general
case
announces
new
rule
breaks
new
ground
imposes
new
obligation
federal
government
put
differently
case
announces
new
rule
result
dictated
precedent
time
defendant
conviction
became
final
plurality
opinion
emphasis
original
said
novelty
turns
whether
rule
represent
developmen
law
reasonable
jurists
disagree
sawyer
smith
emphasized
reasonableness
wholly
deferential
standard
making
clear
existence
conflicting
authority
alone
imply
rule
resolving
conflict
new
one
stringer
black
one
general
rule
emerged
teague
application
existing
precedent
new
factual
setting
amount
announcing
new
rule
see
wright
west
joined
blackmun
stevens
concurring
judgment
proffered
factual
distinction
case
consideration
preexisting
precedent
change
force
precedent
underlying
principle
applies
distinction
meaningful
deviation
precedent
reasonable
kennedy
concurring
judgment
beginning
point
rule
general
application
rule
designed
specific
purpose
evaluating
myriad
factual
contexts
infrequent
case
yields
result
novel
forges
new
rule
one
dictated
precedent
souter
concurring
judgment
teague
mean
course
habeas
petitioner
must
able
point
old
case
decided
facts
identical
facts
said
difficult
question
whether
particular
holding
presents
simply
new
setting
old
rule
announces
new
one
question
difficult
case
however
answer
governed
penry
supra
first
case
majority
adopted
approach
retroactivity
put
forward
plurality
teague
see
circumstances
petitioner
penry
sought
relief
rule
sought
applied
virtually
indistinguishable
circumstances
presented
rule
decision
sought
graham
case
denied
certiorari
penry
direct
appeal
penry
texas
texas
criminal
appeals
affirmed
graham
conviction
sentence
death
graham
state
graham
seek
certiorari
cases
therefore
reasoning
employed
majority
see
ante
decisions
lockett
ohio
eddings
oklahoma
rendered
petitioners
conviction
became
final
penry
penry
entitled
benefit
decisions
comparable
claim
graham
description
penry
claim
applies
indeed
almost
precisely
graham
claim
case
penry
said
challenge
facial
validity
texas
death
penalty
statute
upheld
eighth
amendment
challenge
jurek
texas
dispute
types
mitigating
evidence
fully
considered
sentencer
absence
special
jury
instructions
see
franklin
lynaugh
plurality
opinion
concurring
judgment
instead
argues
facts
case
jury
unable
fully
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
answering
three
special
issues
ibid
lockett
underscored
jurek
recognition
constitutionality
texas
scheme
turns
whether
enumerated
questions
allow
consideration
particularized
mitigating
factors
jurek
plurality
opinion
lockett
indicated
texas
death
penalty
statute
survived
petitioner
eighth
fourteenth
amendment
attack
jurek
three
justices
concluded
texas
criminal
appeals
broadly
interpreted
second
question
despite
facial
narrowness
permit
sentencer
consider
whatever
mitigating
circumstances
defendant
might
able
show
clear
lockett
eddings
state
consistent
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
prevent
sentencer
considering
giving
effect
evidence
relevant
defendant
background
character
circumstances
offense
mitigate
imposing
death
penalty
moreover
facial
validity
texas
death
penalty
statute
upheld
jurek
basis
assurances
special
issues
interpreted
broadly
enough
enable
sentencing
juries
consider
relevant
mitigating
evidence
defendant
might
present
rule
penry
seeks
mitigating
evidence
presented
texas
juries
must
upon
request
given
jury
instructions
make
possible
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
determining
whether
death
penalty
imposed
new
rule
teague
dictated
eddings
lockett
moreover
light
assurances
upon
jurek
based
conclude
relief
penry
seeks
impos
new
obligation
state
texas
teague
first
distinction
penry
claim
graham
type
mitigating
evidence
involved
penry
went
mental
retardation
abused
childhood
graham
involves
youthfulness
unfortunate
background
traits
decent
character
assertion
make
difference
flies
face
justice
kennedy
opinion
last
term
quoted
rule
general
application
rule
designed
specific
purpose
evaluating
myriad
factual
contexts
infrequently
yiel
result
novel
forges
new
rule
one
dictated
precedent
wright
west
opinion
concurring
judgment
second
distinction
material
penry
evidence
retardation
claim
mitigating
effect
second
texas
issue
asks
jury
assess
defendant
future
dangerousness
whereas
graham
evidence
youth
decency
claim
point
lockett
eddings
penry
sentencing
schemes
must
allow
sentencer
give
full
mitigating
effect
evidence
graham
claim
evidence
receive
partial
consideration
much
claim
application
preexisting
rule
demanding
opportunity
full
effect
penry
claim
retardation
given
effect
second
texas
special
issue
thus
conclusion
rule
petitioner
sought
benefit
penry
new
necessarily
follows
rule
petitioner
graham
seeks
new
either
indeed
conclusion
reached
even
respondent
concedes
graham
asserting
existence
constitutional
defect
cured
supplemental
instructions
claim
likewise
barred
brief
respondent
conclusion
contrary
rests
assumption
additional
instruction
required
penry
mitigating
evidence
without
mitigating
relevance
second
future
dangerousness
special
issue
see
ante
holding
penry
reiterates
eighth
amendment
requirement
expressed
lockett
eddings
jury
able
consider
fully
defendant
mitigating
evidence
penry
requires
separate
instruction
whenever
evidence
relevance
moral
culpability
beyond
scope
special
issues
indeed
justice
scalia
dissent
penry
recognized
hat
means
fully
consider
must
mean
distinguish
jurek
consider
purposes
including
purposes
specifically
permitted
questions
opinion
dissenting
relevant
part
emphasis
original
dissent
argued
required
constitution
see
correctly
described
holding
opinion
penry
nothing
penry
aside
justice
scalia
dissent
nothing
controlling
opinions
lockett
eddings
suggested
eighth
amendment
requirement
obviated
happenstance
defendant
particular
mitigating
evidence
relevant
one
special
issues
even
though
may
mitigating
force
beyond
scope
issue
penry
plainly
answered
teague
question
majority
answers
differently
today
question
even
respondent
see
fit
raise
penry
controls
respect
adhere
ii
therefore
turn
merits
claim
properly
us
penry
controls
reasons
already
anticipated
teague
analysis
bearing
expansion
following
first
grant
certiorari
case
vacated
judgment
remanded
reconsideration
light
penry
see
graham
lynaugh
panel
appeals
fifth
circuit
decided
vacate
graham
death
sentence
remand
graham
collins
appeals
took
case
en
banc
however
vote
construed
penry
require
additional
instruction
instances
major
mitigating
thrust
evidence
substantially
beyond
scope
special
issues
en
banc
also
limited
application
penry
mitigating
evidence
circumstances
transitory
uniquely
severe
permanent
handicaps
defendant
burdened
fault
see
penry
lends
support
limitations
however
plainly
odds
controlling
eighth
amendment
precedents
purport
disturb
cases
construed
eighth
amendment
impose
two
limitations
upon
state
capital
sentencing
system
first
determining
eligible
death
penalty
state
must
narrow
class
murderers
subject
capital
punishment
providing
specific
detailed
guidance
sentencer
mccleskey
kemp
quoting
gregg
georgia
proffitt
florida
second
constitution
nonetheless
limits
state
ability
narrow
sentencer
discretion
consider
relevant
evidence
might
cause
decline
impose
death
sentence
emphasis
original
latter
limitation
concerns
us
today
cases
require
sentencer
capital
case
permitted
give
reasoned
moral
response
defendant
mitigating
evidence
see
california
brown
concurring
emphasis
deleted
sentencer
precluded
considering
mitigating
factor
aspect
defendant
character
record
circumstances
offense
defendant
proffers
basis
sentence
less
death
lockett
plurality
opinion
emphasis
original
omitted
understood
follow
conclusion
ny
exclusion
compassionate
mitigating
factors
stemming
diverse
frailties
humankind
relevant
sentencer
decision
fail
treat
persons
uniquely
individual
human
beings
mccleskey
supra
quoting
woodson
north
carolina
first
described
jurek
texas
scheme
measured
obligation
assesses
mitigating
well
aggravating
evidence
looking
backward
defendant
moral
culpability
crime
distinct
strictly
legal
guilt
forward
likely
behavior
life
taken
thus
first
issue
requires
sentencer
determine
whether
defendant
acted
deliberately
third
asks
assessment
provocation
mitigating
fault
response
issue
demands
examination
past
fact
bearing
moral
significance
past
act
second
issue
hand
calls
prediction
future
behavior
prompting
judgment
moral
utilitarian
sense
society
may
legitimately
prefer
preserve
lives
murderers
unlikely
endanger
others
future
lives
guilty
pose
continuing
threats
issues
exhaust
categories
mitigating
fact
time
jurek
decided
criminal
appeals
texas
indicated
second
special
issue
given
wide
enough
compass
allow
jury
consideration
diverse
facts
prior
record
character
past
crimes
duress
emotional
pressure
associated
instant
crime
age
defendant
jurek
thus
reasonable
expectation
sentencer
authority
give
comprehensive
effect
defendant
mitigating
evidence
penry
revealed
however
facts
case
confirm
neither
second
special
issues
construed
enough
scope
allow
full
consideration
mitigating
potential
lockett
eddings
confirmed
required
challenges
texas
statute
applied
may
sustained
despite
statute
capacity
withstand
jurek
facial
challenge
holding
death
sentence
resulting
application
texas
special
issues
upheld
unless
jury
able
consider
fully
defendant
mitigating
evidence
penry
perfectly
straightforward
application
eighth
amendment
requirement
individualized
sentencing
specific
question
penry
whether
mitigating
evidence
penry
mental
retardation
history
abuse
bears
penry
personal
culpability
taken
account
texas
special
issues
deciding
case
examined
special
issue
turn
concluded
first
jury
instruction
barred
full
consideration
evidence
retardation
personal
abuse
first
deliberate
ness
special
issue
see
second
insofar
evidence
bore
personal
culpability
given
mitigating
effect
issue
future
dangerousness
latter
indeed
considered
aggravating
factor
although
described
penry
evidence
sword
diminish
ing
blameworthiness
crime
even
indicates
probability
dangerous
future
dilemma
thus
presented
essential
conclusion
second
special
issue
failed
meet
state
constitutional
obligations
point
simply
special
issue
allow
jury
give
effect
mitigating
force
penry
evidence
bore
personal
culpability
finally
concluded
juror
believed
penry
lacked
moral
culpability
sentenced
death
express
view
answering
third
provocation
special
issue
also
concluded
penry
action
reasonable
response
provocation
sum
full
consideration
tendency
retardation
history
abuse
mitigate
moral
culpability
impossible
graham
evidence
falls
three
distinct
categories
task
take
analytical
steps
undertook
penry
see
whether
sentencing
jury
give
full
mitigating
effect
first
evidence
graham
youth
committed
murder
convicted
sentenced
less
six
months
crime
youth
may
understood
mitigate
reducing
defendant
moral
culpability
crime
emotional
cognitive
immaturity
inexperience
life
render
less
responsible
see
eddings
oklahoma
youthfulness
may
also
seen
mitigating
transitory
indicating
defendant
less
likely
dangerous
future
penry
evidence
mental
retardation
mitigating
force
graham
youth
fully
accounted
first
deliberateness
issue
given
trial
judge
explanation
issue
jury
formal
jury
instruction
explained
deliberate
meant
judge
emphasized
voir
dire
deliberate
meant
simply
intentional
see
app
definition
hardly
allowed
exhaustion
mitigating
force
youth
young
person
may
perfectly
well
commit
crime
intentionally
prior
cases
hold
youth
may
nonetheless
treated
limiting
moral
culpability
lack
experience
perspective
judgment
expected
adults
eddings
supra
quoting
bellotti
baird
already
noted
appeals
answered
difficulty
reasoning
major
mitigating
thrust
evidence
given
effect
second
special
issue
calling
assessment
future
dangerousness
errors
view
also
seen
first
nothing
penry
suggests
partial
consideration
mitigating
effect
evidence
satisfies
constitution
penry
like
eddings
lockett
plurality
eighth
amendment
demand
sentencer
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
fully
evidence
relevance
moral
culpability
beyond
scope
special
issues
constitutional
standards
require
separate
instruction
authorizing
complete
effect
given
see
mccleskey
ny
exclusion
mitigating
evidence
inconsistent
eighth
amendment
individualized
sentencing
requirements
thus
even
future
dangerousness
issue
allowed
jury
recognize
graham
evanescent
youth
tending
mitigate
danger
imprisoned
life
still
fail
test
eighth
amendment
jury
give
effect
youth
reducing
graham
moral
culpability
eighth
amendment
requires
consideration
mitigating
evidence
appeals
also
erred
thinking
second
special
issue
adequate
even
take
account
possibility
graham
may
less
dangerous
ages
issue
stated
terms
statutory
question
whether
probability
defendant
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
art
vernon
boy
killed
promptly
tried
graham
well
held
dangerous
future
reason
continuing
youth
error
limit
penry
cases
mitigating
condition
permanent
see
answer
say
youth
fleeting
may
fleeting
enough
sufficiently
young
defendant
may
continuing
youth
considered
second
issue
aggravating
mitigating
case
moreover
possibility
taking
youth
aggravating
without
recognition
mitigating
effect
vastly
intensified
remarks
trial
judge
permitting
finding
future
dangerousness
based
even
probability
petitioner
might
commit
minor
acts
criminal
vandalism
property
scratching
someone
car
tearing
lawn
high
school
riding
motorcycle
see
app
finally
graham
convicted
shooting
killing
man
robbery
situation
respect
third
special
issue
case
petitioner
penry
evidence
youth
irrelevant
reasonableness
provocation
deceased
evidence
event
juror
thus
concluded
responses
special
issues
required
imposition
death
penalty
even
though
believed
graham
reason
youth
lacked
moral
culpability
sentenced
death
penry
without
case
controlled
penry
additional
instruction
required
next
category
evidence
issue
graham
difficult
upbringing
mother
mental
illness
repeated
hospitalization
shifting
custody
one
family
relation
another
specifically
held
circumstances
may
considered
mitigation
particularly
conduct
defendant
young
see
eddings
supra
upbringing
might
deforming
enough
affect
capacity
culpability
however
obviously
case
deliberateness
said
turn
intention
assurance
first
issue
allows
full
scope
mitigating
effect
considered
youth
upbringing
treated
aggravating
future
dangerousness
issue
mitigating
potential
third
issue
provocation
youth
room
former
texas
special
issues
applied
case
take
full
account
mitigating
relevance
jury
might
find
finally
graham
argues
jury
unable
take
account
redeeming
character
traits
revealed
evidence
growing
voluntarily
helped
parents
grandparents
household
chores
religious
person
attended
church
regularly
grandmother
contributed
support
children
money
earned
job
father
accept
petitioner
contention
jury
give
adequate
consideration
testimony
matters
insofar
evidence
tended
paint
graham
person
unlikely
pose
future
danger
jury
consider
second
special
issue
insofar
jury
unable
graham
alleges
give
evidence
effect
diminish
graham
moral
culpability
brief
petitioner
enough
say
relevance
evidence
moral
culpability
simply
de
minimis
voluntary
chores
church
attendance
relative
supplying
level
support
one
children
virtually
bearing
one
culpability
crime
way
immaturity
permanent
damage
due
events
childhood
may
understand
petitioner
arguing
jury
allowed
consider
evidence
revealing
element
value
unrelated
circumstances
crime
see
franklin
concurring
judgment
stevens
dissenting
address
issue
iii
hold
penry
preceding
eighth
amendment
cases
require
petitioner
death
sentence
vacated
remand
case
resentencing
state
courts
texas
capital
punishment
statute
invalidated
branch
texas
one
cases
decided
furman
georgia
texas
enacted
new
capital
sentencing
statute
statute
petitioner
gary
graham
sentenced
provides
conclusion
presentation
evidence
sentencing
phase
capital
murder
trial
shall
submit
following
issues
jury
whether
conduct
defendant
caused
death
deceased
committed
deliberately
reasonable
expectation
death
deceased
another
result
whether
probability
defendant
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
raised
evidence
whether
conduct
defendant
killing
deceased
unreasonable
response
provocation
deceased
jury
returns
affirmative
finding
issue
submitted
article
shall
sentence
defendant
death
art
vernon
distinction
even
apply
graham
claim
sentencing
jury
give
full
mitigating
effect
evidence
unfortunate
background
course
regard
despite
mitigating
force
penry
evidence
abused
childhood
graham
evidence
unfortunate
background
tendency
support
affirmative
answer
future
dangerousness
special
issue
explain
reasoning
graham
claim
concerning
evidence
background
barred
teague
lane
plurality
opinion
see
ante
undifferentiated
references
graham
evidence
respondent
argument
concerning
application
teague
petitioner
claim
claim
extensive
constitute
facial
challenge
texas
statute
brief
respondent
words
sustaining
graham
claim
necessarily
require
jurek
overruled
barred
teague
however
petitioner
ask
jurek
texas
overruled
indeed
concedes
texas
statute
applied
constitutionally
cases
franklin
lynaugh
mitigating
evidence
given
full
mitigating
weight
special
issues
see
brief
petitioner
thus
respondent
teague
argument
application
case
see
also
penry
scalia
dissenting
part
arguing
contrary
holding
jurek
remains
available
challenge
texas
statute
contention
particular
mitigating
circumstance
fact
irrelevant
three
questions
poses
hence
considered
full
may
responding
several
pending
petitions
certiorari
presenting
question
involved
case
direct
review
see
johnson
texas
cert
pending
jackson
texas
cert
pending
boggess
texas
cert
pending
trial
petitioner
seek
additional
penry
instruction
says
required
whether
failure
request
instruction
bar
subsequent
challenge
question
state
procedure
conviction
affirmed
state
appellate
courts
ground
petitioner
failed
raise
claim
trial
hat
affirmance
rest
independent
adequate
state
law
ground
texas
criminal
appeals
appears
addressed
petitioner
challenge
merits
state
postconviction
proceeding
see
app
event
texas
law
penry
claim
procedurally
barred
even
additional
mitigating
evidence
instruction
requested
objection
made
trial
jury
instructions
see
selvage
collins
app
black
state
app
campbell
concurring
adequacy
texas
special
issues
case
therefore
properly
us
indeed
ways
evidence
may
mitigate
imposition
death
sentence
previously
mentioned
members
see
franklin
lynaugh
joined
blackmun
concurring
judgment
referring
positive
character
traits
might
mitigate
death
penalty
stevens
joined
brennan
marshall
dissenting
character
evidence
redeeming
features
may
reveal
virtues
fairly
balanced
society
interest
killing
defendant
retribution
violent
crime
analysis
today
require
extended
consideration
category
suggested
franklin
see
infra
see
also
jurek
joint
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
jj
constitutionality
texas
procedures
turns
whether
enumerated
questions
allow
consideration
particularized
mitigating
factors
justice
thomas
argues
ante
rule
applied
penry
originated
entirely
whole
cloth
two
recent
concurring
opinions
california
brown
concurring
franklin
lynaugh
supra
concurring
judgment
requires
unbridled
jury
discretion
even
point
death
penalty
may
withheld
basis
race
ante
first
contention
lockett
ohio
understood
time
handed
require
constitutionally
relevant
mitigating
evidence
definition
given
given
full
consideration
effect
see
white
concurring
part
dissenting
part
concurring
judgments
emphasis
added
lockett
requir
es
matter
constitutional
law
sentencing
authorities
permitted
consider
discretion
act
upon
mitigating
circumstances
understanding
upon
lockett
eddings
consistently
applied
see
skipper
south
carolina
assuming
state
rule
case
effect
precluding
defendant
introducing
otherwise
admissible
evidence
explicit
purpose
convincing
jury
spared
death
penalty
pose
undue
danger
jailers
fellow
prisoners
lead
useful
life
behind
bars
sentenced
life
imprisonment
rule
pass
muster
eddings
mccleskey
kemp
limit
sentencer
consideration
relevant
circumstance
cause
decline
impose
death
penalty
emphasis
added
franklin
lynaugh
supra
joined
blackmun
concurring
judgment
stevens
joined
brennan
marshall
dissenting
one
may
argue
aspect
eighth
amendment
jurisprudence
tension
sentence
gregg
state
give
jury
guidance
factors
deems
particularly
relevant
sentencing
decision
ante
thomas
concurring
quoting
gregg
georgia
tension
dates
latest
eddings
decided
penry
one
novelty
concurring
opinions
brown
franklin
however
use
phrase
reasoned
moral
response
see
supra
justice
thomas
adverts
concurring
opinion
concurring
opinion
explained
brown
shorthand
individual
assessment
personal
culpability
lockett
eddings
mandate
see
brown
supra
indeed
appropriate
shorthand
justice
thomas
acknowledges
think
everyone
must
capital
punishment
expression
society
moral
outrage
particularly
offensive
conduct
ante
quoting
gregg
georgia
supra
joint
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
jj
reminds
us
ny
determination
death
fitting
punishment
particular
crime
necessarily
moral
one
ante
justice
thomas
second
concern
sympathy
defendant
member
favored
group
ante
involves
issues
great
seriousness
lockett
eddings
rule
one
unbridled
unbounded
discretion
see
ante
constitutionally
relevant
mitigating
evidence
limited
aspects
defendant
character
record
circumstances
offense
defendant
proffers
basis
sentence
less
death
lockett
supra
plurality
opinion
defendant
race
mitigating
aspect
character
record
circumstance
offense
may
committed
note
regard
trial
judge
remarks
voir
dire
may
inappropriately
left
jury
consider
whether
graham
dangerous
future
set
free
see
brief
petitioner
light
conclusion
graham
death
sentence
vacated
need
address
propriety
sentence
imposed
basis
future
dangerousness
public
possibility
defendant
sentenced
term
less
life
without
possibility
parole