simmons
south
carolina
argued
january
decided
june
penalty
phase
petitioner
south
carolina
trial
state
argued
future
dangerousness
factor
jury
consider
deciding
whether
sentence
death
life
imprisonment
murder
elderly
woman
rebuttal
petitioner
presented
evidence
future
dangerousness
limited
elderly
women
thus
reason
expect
violent
acts
prison
however
refused
give
jury
proposed
instruction
state
law
ineligible
parole
asked
jury
whether
life
imprisonment
carried
possibility
parole
instructed
jury
consider
parole
reaching
verdict
terms
life
imprisonment
death
sentence
understood
plain
ordinary
meaning
jury
returned
death
sentence
appeal
state
concluded
regardless
whether
trial
refusal
inform
sentencing
jury
defendant
parole
ineligibility
might
ever
error
instruction
given
petitioner
jury
satisfied
substance
request
charge
ineligibility
held
judgment
reversed
case
remanded
reversed
remanded
justice
blackmun
joined
justice
stevens
justice
souter
justice
ginsburg
concluded
defendant
future
dangerousness
issue
state
law
prohibits
release
parole
due
process
requires
sentencing
jury
informed
defendant
parole
ineligible
individual
executed
basis
information
opportunity
deny
explain
gardner
florida
petitioner
jury
reasonably
may
believed
released
parole
page
ii
executed
extent
misunderstanding
pervaded
deliberations
effect
creating
false
choice
sentencing
death
sentencing
limited
period
incarceration
trial
refusal
apprise
jury
information
crucial
determination
particularly
state
alluded
defendant
future
dangerousness
argument
reconciled
well
established
precedents
interpreting
due
process
clause
see
skipper
south
carolina
pp
trial
instruction
life
imprisonment
understood
plain
ordinary
meaning
satisfy
petitioner
request
parole
ineligibility
charge
since
nothing
dispel
misunderstanding
reasonable
jurors
may
way
particular
state
defines
life
imprisonment
pp
justice
joined
chief
justice
justice
kennedy
concluded
state
puts
defendant
future
dangerousness
issue
available
alternative
sentence
death
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
due
process
entitles
defendant
inform
sentencing
jury
either
argument
instruction
parole
ineligible
prosecution
argue
future
dangerousness
state
may
appropriately
decide
parole
proper
issue
jury
consideration
even
alternative
sentence
death
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
trial
instruction
satisfy
petitioner
request
parole
ineligibility
charge
since
rejection
parole
recent
development
displacing
longstanding
practice
parole
availability
since
common
sense
dictates
many
jurors
might
know
whether
life
sentence
carries
possibility
parole
pp
simmons
south
carolina
justice
blackmun
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
justice
stevens
justice
souter
justice
ginsburg
join
case
presents
question
whether
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
violated
refusal
state
trial
instruct
jury
penalty
phase
capital
trial
state
law
defendant
ineligible
parole
hold
defendant
future
dangerousness
issue
state
law
prohibits
defendant
release
parole
due
process
requires
sentencing
jury
informed
defendant
parole
ineligible
july
petitioner
beat
death
elderly
woman
josie
lamb
home
columbia
south
carolina
week
petitioner
capital
murder
trial
scheduled
begin
pleaded
guilty
first
degree
burglary
two
counts
criminal
sexual
conduct
connection
two
prior
assaults
elderly
women
petitioner
guilty
pleas
resulted
convictions
violent
offenses
convictions
rendered
simmons
south
carolina
petitioner
ineligible
parole
convicted
subsequent
violent
crime
offense
ann
supp
prior
jury
selection
prosecution
advised
trial
judge
state
bviously
going
ask
exclude
mention
parole
throughout
trial
app
defense
counsel
objection
trial
granted
prosecution
motion
order
barring
defense
asking
question
voir
dire
regarding
parole
order
defense
counsel
forbidden
even
mention
subject
parole
expressly
prohibited
questioning
prospective
jurors
whether
understood
meaning
life
sentence
south
carolina
law
trial
petitioner
convicted
murder
lamb
penalty
phase
defense
brought
forward
mitigating
evidence
tending
show
petitioner
violent
behavior
reflected
serious
mental
disorders
stemmed
years
neglect
extreme
sexual
physical
abuse
petitioner
endured
adolescent
disagreement
among
witnesses
regarding
extent
petitioner
mental
condition
properly
deemed
disorder
witnesses
defense
prosecution
agreed
petitioner
posed
continuing
danger
elderly
women
closing
argument
prosecution
argued
petitioner
future
dangerousness
factor
jury
consider
fixing
appropriate
punishment
question
jury
said
prosecution
petitioner
simmons
south
carolina
midst
prosecution
urged
verdict
death
response
society
someone
threat
verdict
act
ibid
petitioner
sought
rebut
prosecution
generalized
argument
future
dangerousness
presenting
evidence
due
unique
psychological
problems
dangerousness
limited
elderly
women
reason
expect
acts
violence
isolated
prison
setting
support
argument
petitioner
introduced
testimony
female
medical
assistant
two
supervising
officers
richland
county
jail
petitioner
held
prior
trial
three
testified
petitioner
adapted
well
prison
life
pretrial
confinement
behaved
violent
manner
toward
inmates
staff
petitioner
also
offered
expert
opinion
testimony
richard
boyle
clinical
social
worker
former
correctional
employee
reviewed
observed
petitioner
institutional
adjustment
boyle
expressed
view
based
petitioner
background
current
functioning
petitioner
successfully
adapt
prison
sentenced
life
imprisonment
concerned
jury
might
understand
life
imprisonment
carry
possibility
parole
petitioner
case
defense
counsel
asked
trial
judge
clarify
point
defining
term
life
imprisonment
jury
accordance
code
supp
buttress
request
simmons
south
carolina
petitioner
proffered
outside
presence
jury
evidence
conclusively
establishing
parole
ineligibility
petitioner
behalf
attorneys
south
carolina
department
corrections
department
probation
parole
pardons
testified
offender
petitioner
position
fact
ineligible
parole
south
carolina
law
prosecution
challenge
question
petitioner
parole
ineligibility
instead
sought
elicit
admissions
witnesses
notwithstanding
petitioner
parole
ineligibility
petitioner
might
receive
holiday
furloughs
forms
early
release
even
effort
unsuccessful
however
revealed
department
corrections
regulations
prohibit
petitioner
release
early
release
programs
work
release
supervised
furloughs
convicted
murderer
serving
life
without
parole
ever
furloughed
otherwise
released
reason
petitioner
offered
evidence
without
objection
results
statewide
public
opinion
survey
conducted
university
south
carolina
institute
public
affairs
survey
conducted
days
petitioner
trial
showed
percent
adults
questioned
firmly
believed
inmate
sentenced
life
imprisonment
south
carolina
actually
required
spend
rest
life
prison
see
app
almost
half
surveyed
believed
convicted
murderer
might
paroled
within
years
nearly
thought
release
certainly
occur
less
years
ibid
percent
surveyed
indicated
called
upon
make
capital
sentencing
decision
jurors
amount
time
convicted
murderer
actually
spend
prison
extremely
important
important
factor
choosing
life
death
simmons
south
carolina
petitioner
argued
view
public
apparent
misunderstanding
meaning
life
imprisonment
south
carolina
reasonable
likelihood
jurors
vote
death
simply
believed
mistakenly
petitioner
eventually
released
parole
prosecution
opposed
proposed
instruction
urging
allow
argument
state
defense
parole
charge
jury
anything
concerning
parole
citing
south
carolina
opinion
state
torrence
trial
refused
petitioner
requested
instruction
petitioner
asked
alternatively
following
instruction
charge
sentences
mean
say
recommend
defendant
jonathan
simmons
sentenced
death
actually
sentenced
death
executed
hand
recommend
sentenced
life
imprisonment
actually
sentenced
imprisonment
state
penitentiary
balance
natural
life
deliberations
speculate
sentences
mean
anything
told
told
exactly
happen
defendant
depending
sentencing
decision
app
deliberating
petitioner
sentence
minutes
jury
sent
note
judge
asking
single
question
imposition
life
sentence
carry
possibility
parole
simmons
south
carolina
petitioner
objection
trial
judge
gave
following
instruction
instructed
consider
parole
parole
eligibility
reaching
verdict
consider
parole
parole
eligibility
proper
issue
consideration
terms
life
imprisonment
death
sentence
understood
plan
sic
ordinary
meaning
appeal
south
carolina
petitioner
argued
trial
judge
refusal
provide
jury
accurate
information
regarding
parole
ineligibility
violated
eighth
amendment
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
south
carolina
declined
reach
merits
petitioner
challenges
one
justice
dissenting
concluded
regardless
whether
trial
refusal
inform
sentencing
jury
defendant
parole
ineligibility
might
error
simmons
south
carolina
circumstances
instruction
given
petitioner
jury
satisfie
substance
petitioner
request
charge
parole
ineligibility
thus
reason
consider
whether
denial
instruction
constitutional
error
case
state
simmons
granted
certiorari
ii
due
process
clause
allow
execution
person
basis
information
opportunity
deny
explain
gardner
florida
case
jury
reasonably
may
believed
petitioner
released
parole
executed
extent
misunderstanding
pervaded
jury
deliberations
effect
creating
false
choice
sentencing
petitioner
death
sentencing
limited
period
incarceration
grievous
misperception
encouraged
trial
refusal
provide
jury
accurate
information
regarding
petitioner
parole
ineligibility
state
repeated
suggestion
petitioner
pose
future
danger
society
executed
three
times
petitioner
asked
inform
jury
fact
ineligible
parole
state
law
three
times
request
denied
state
thus
succeeded
securing
death
sentence
ground
least
part
petitioner
future
dangerousness
time
concealing
sentencing
jury
true
meaning
sentencing
alternative
namely
life
imprisonment
meant
life
without
parole
think
clear
state
denied
petitioner
due
process
simmons
south
carolina
approved
jury
consideration
future
dangerousness
penalty
phase
capital
trial
recognizing
defendant
future
dangerousness
bears
sentencing
determinations
made
criminal
justice
system
see
jurek
texas
plurality
opinion
noting
sentencing
authority
must
predict
convicted
person
probable
future
conduct
engages
process
determining
punishment
impose
california
ramos
explaining
proper
sentencing
jury
capital
case
consider
defendant
potential
reform
whether
probable
future
behavior
counsels
desirability
release
society
although
south
carolina
statutes
mandate
consideration
defendant
future
dangerousness
capital
sentencing
state
evidence
aggravation
limited
evidence
relating
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
see
barclay
florida
plurality
opinion
california
ramos
jury
finds
defendant
falls
within
legislatively
defined
category
persons
eligible
death
penalty
jury
free
consider
myriad
factors
determine
whether
death
appropriate
punishment
thus
prosecutors
south
carolina
like
impose
death
penalty
frequently
emphasize
defendant
future
dangerousness
evidence
argument
sentencing
phase
urge
jury
sentence
defendant
death
danger
public
released
prison
eisenberg
wells
deadly
confusion
juror
instructions
capital
cases
cornell
arguments
relating
defendant
future
dangerousness
ordinarily
inappropriate
guilt
phase
simmons
south
carolina
trial
jury
free
convict
defendant
simply
poses
future
danger
defendant
future
dangerousness
likely
relevant
question
whether
element
alleged
offense
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
jury
sentencing
responsibilities
capital
trial
many
issues
irrelevant
determination
step
foreground
require
consideration
sentencing
phase
defendant
character
prior
criminal
history
mental
capacity
background
age
many
factors
addition
future
dangerousness
jury
may
consider
fixing
appropriate
punishment
see
lockett
ohio
eddings
oklahoma
barclay
florida
assessing
future
dangerousness
actual
duration
defendant
prison
sentence
indisputably
relevant
holding
factors
constant
entirely
reasonable
sentencing
jury
view
defendant
eligible
parole
greater
threat
society
defendant
indeed
may
greater
assurance
defendant
future
nondangerousness
public
fact
never
released
parole
trial
refusal
apprise
jury
information
crucial
sentencing
determination
particularly
prosecution
alluded
defendant
future
dangerousness
argument
jury
reconciled
precedents
interpreting
due
process
clause
skipper
south
carolina
held
defendant
denied
due
process
refusal
state
trial
admit
evidence
defendant
good
behavior
prison
penalty
simmons
south
carolina
phase
capital
trial
although
majority
opinion
stressed
defendant
good
behavior
prison
relevant
evidence
mitigation
punishment
thus
admissible
eighth
amendment
citing
lockett
ohio
plurality
opinion
skipper
opinion
expressly
noted
conclusion
also
compelled
due
process
clause
explained
prosecution
relies
prediction
future
dangerousness
requesting
death
penalty
elemental
due
process
principles
operate
require
admission
defendant
relevant
evidence
rebuttal
see
also
powell
opinion
concurring
judgment
ecause
petitioner
allowed
rebut
evidence
argument
used
defendant
clearly
denied
due
process
reached
similar
conclusion
gardner
florida
case
defendant
sentenced
death
basis
presentence
report
made
available
therefore
rebut
plurality
explained
sending
man
death
basis
information
opportunity
deny
explain
violated
fundamental
notions
due
process
principle
announced
gardner
reaffirmed
skipper
compels
decision
today
see
also
crane
kentucky
due
process
entitles
defendant
meaningful
opportunity
present
complete
defense
citation
omitted
ake
oklahoma
state
presents
psychiatric
evidence
defendant
future
dangerousness
capital
sentencing
proceeding
due
process
entitles
indigent
defendant
assistance
psychiatrist
development
defense
like
defendants
skipper
gardner
petitioner
prevented
rebutting
information
simmons
south
carolina
sentencing
authority
considered
upon
may
relied
imposing
sentence
death
state
raised
specter
petitioner
future
dangerousness
generally
thwarted
efforts
petitioner
demonstrate
contrary
prosecutor
intimations
never
released
parole
thus
view
pose
future
danger
society
logic
effectiveness
petitioner
argument
naturally
depended
fact
legally
ineligible
parole
thus
remain
prison
afforded
life
sentence
petitioner
efforts
focus
jury
attention
question
whether
prison
future
danger
futile
repeatedly
denied
opportunity
inform
jury
never
released
parole
jury
left
speculate
petitioner
parole
eligibility
evaluating
petitioner
future
dangerousness
denied
straight
answer
petitioner
parole
eligibility
even
requested
state
amici
contend
petitioner
entitled
instruction
informing
jury
petitioner
ineligible
parole
information
inherently
misleading
essentially
argue
simmons
south
carolina
future
exigencies
legislative
reform
commutation
clemency
escape
might
allow
petitioner
released
society
petitioner
entitled
inform
jury
parole
ineligible
insofar
argument
targeted
specific
wording
instruction
petitioner
requested
argument
misplaced
petitioner
requested
instruction
recommend
defendant
sentenced
life
imprisonment
actually
sentenced
imprisonment
state
penitentiary
balance
natural
life
app
proposed
trial
ruled
south
carolina
law
prohibited
plain
language
instruction
petitioner
ineligible
parole
state
law
extent
state
opposes
even
simple
parole
ineligibility
instruction
hypothetical
future
developments
argument
little
force
respondent
admits
instruction
informing
jury
petitioner
ineligible
parole
legally
accurate
certainly
instruction
accurate
instruction
leaves
jury
speculate
whether
life
imprisonment
means
life
without
parole
something
else
state
asserted
accuracy
concerns
undermined
fact
large
majority
provide
life
imprisonment
without
parole
alternative
capital
punishment
inform
sentencing
authority
defendant
parole
ineligibility
simmons
south
carolina
provide
capital
sentencing
juries
information
regarding
parole
ineligibility
seem
rely
south
carolina
proposition
california
ramos
held
simmons
south
carolina
determinations
purely
matters
state
law
true
ramos
stands
broad
proposition
generally
defer
state
determination
jury
told
sentencing
state
parole
available
jury
knowledge
parole
availability
affect
decision
whether
impose
death
penalty
speculative
shall
lightly
decision
whether
inform
jury
information
regarding
parole
reasonably
may
conclude
truthful
information
regarding
availability
commutation
pardon
like
kept
jury
order
provide
greater
protection
criminal
justice
system
federal
constitution
requires
concomitantly
nothing
constitution
prohibits
prosecution
arguing
truthful
information
relating
parole
forms
early
release
simmons
south
carolina
state
rests
case
imposing
death
penalty
least
part
premise
defendant
dangerous
future
fact
alternative
sentence
death
life
without
parole
necessarily
undercut
state
argument
regarding
threat
defendant
poses
society
truthful
information
parole
ineligibility
allows
defendant
deny
explain
showing
future
dangerousness
due
process
plainly
requires
allowed
bring
jury
attention
way
argument
defense
counsel
instruction
see
gardner
iii
remains
considered
whether
south
carolina
correct
concluding
trial
satisfie
substance
petitioner
request
charge
parole
ineligibility
responded
jury
query
stating
life
imprisonment
understood
plain
ordinary
meaning
ibid
view
petitioner
basically
received
instruction
requested
disagree
hardly
questioned
juries
lack
accurate
information
precise
meaning
life
imprisonment
defined
much
country
history
parole
mainstay
state
federal
sentencing
regimes
every
term
whether
term
life
term
years
practice
understood
shorter
stated
term
see
generally
lowenthal
mandatory
sentencing
laws
undermining
effectiveness
determinate
sentencing
reform
describing
development
mandatory
sentencing
laws
increasingly
legislatures
enacted
mandatory
sentencing
laws
severe
penalty
provisions
yet
precise
contours
penal
laws
vary
state
state
see
cheatwood
simmons
south
carolina
life
without
parole
sanction
current
status
research
agenda
crime
delinq
justice
chandler
south
carolina
observed
impossible
ignore
reality
known
reasonable
juror
historically
life
term
defendants
eligible
parole
state
smith
opinion
concurring
dissenting
cert
denied
instruction
directing
juries
life
imprisonment
understood
plain
ordinary
meaning
nothing
dispel
misunderstanding
reasonable
jurors
may
way
particular
state
defines
life
imprisonment
see
boyde
california
reasonable
likelihood
jury
applied
challenged
instruction
way
prevents
consideration
constitutionally
relevant
evidence
defendant
denied
due
process
true
state
points
trial
admonished
jury
instructed
consider
parole
parole
proper
issue
simmons
south
carolina
consideration
app
far
ensuring
jury
misled
however
instruction
actually
suggested
parole
available
jury
unstated
reason
blind
fact
undoubtedly
instruction
confusing
frustrating
jury
given
arguments
prosecution
defense
relating
petitioner
future
dangerousness
obvious
relevance
petitioner
parole
ineligibility
jury
formidable
sentencing
task
juries
ordinarily
presumed
follow
instructions
see
greer
miller
recognized
circumstances
risk
jury
follow
instructions
great
consequences
failure
vital
defendant
practical
human
limitations
jury
system
ignored
bruton
see
also
beck
alabama
barclay
florida
sentencing
decision
calls
exercise
judgment
neither
possible
desirable
person
state
entrusts
important
judgment
decide
vacuum
experiences
even
trial
instruction
successfully
prevented
jury
considering
parole
petitioner
due
process
rights
still
honored
petitioner
future
dangerousness
issue
entitled
inform
jury
parole
ineligibility
instruction
directing
jury
consider
defendant
likely
conduct
prison
satisfied
due
process
skipper
supra
reasons
instruction
issued
trial
case
satisfy
due
process
simmons
south
carolina
iv
state
may
create
false
dilemma
advancing
generalized
arguments
regarding
defendant
future
dangerousness
time
preventing
jury
learning
defendant
never
released
parole
judgment
south
carolina
accordingly
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
section
board
must
grant
parole
parole
authorized
prisoner
serving
sentence
second
subsequent
conviction
following
separate
sentencing
prior
conviction
violent
crimes
defined
section
petitioner
earlier
convictions
burglary
first
degree
criminal
sexual
assault
first
degree
violent
offenses
specifically
petitioner
argued
eighth
amendment
parole
ineligibility
mitigating
sense
might
serve
basis
sentence
less
death
skipper
south
carolina
quoting
lockett
ohio
plurality
opinion
therefore
entitled
inform
jury
parole
ineligibility
also
asserted
withholding
jury
fact
life
without
parole
sentencing
alternative
trial
impermissibly
diminished
reliability
jury
determination
death
appropriate
punishment
cf
beck
alabama
finally
relying
authority
gardner
florida
petitioner
argued
due
process
right
rebut
state
argument
petitioner
posed
future
danger
society
violated
trial
refusal
permit
show
noncapital
sentence
adequately
protect
public
future
acts
violence
express
opinion
question
whether
result
reach
today
also
compelled
eighth
amendment
course
fact
defendant
parole
ineligible
prevent
state
arguing
defendant
poses
future
danger
state
free
argue
defendant
pose
danger
others
prison
executing
means
eliminating
threat
safety
inmates
prison
staff
state
may
mislead
jury
concealing
accurate
information
defendant
parole
ineligibility
due
process
clause
tolerate
placing
capital
defendant
straitjacket
barring
rebutting
prosecution
arguments
future
dangerousness
fact
ineligible
parole
state
law
regard
state
emphasizes
statute
prohibits
simmons
south
carolina
petitioner
eventual
release
society
technically
may
true
state
regulations
unambiguously
prohibit
work
release
virtually
furloughs
inmates
ineligible
parole
see
app
pardons
statute
provides
available
extraordinary
circumstances
ann
present
employ
juries
capital
sentencing
provide
life
imprisonment
without
parole
alternative
capital
punishment
jury
expressly
informed
defendant
ineligibility
parole
nine
simmons
south
carolina
simply
identify
jury
sentencing
alternatives
death
life
without
parole
see
ann
cal
penal
code
ann
west
ann
tit
art
west
supp
stat
supp
supp
eight
allow
jury
specify
whether
defendant
eligible
parole
see
ann
supp
art
supp
michie
supp
tit
supp
ann
supp
utah
code
ann
supp
three
statutory
decisional
law
requires
sentencing
jury
instructed
accurate
defendant
ineligible
parole
see
supp
people
gacho
turner
state
miss
cert
denied
three
considered
question
whether
jurors
instructed
defendant
ineligible
parole
state
law
see
supp
codified
laws
supp
florida
however
approved
publication
pattern
jury
instructions
inform
capital
sentencing
juries
feature
see
standard
jury
instructions
criminal
cases
finally
four
capital
sentencing
decision
made
trial
judge
alone
sentencing
panel
judges
thus
well
sentencing
authority
fully
aware
precise
parole
status
murderers
supp
idaho
code
ann
two
south
carolina
life
without
parole
sentencing
alternative
capital
punishment
convicted
murderers
refuse
inform
sentencing
juries
fact
see
commonwealth
henry
cert
denied
commonwealth
strong
eaton
commonwealth
cert
denied
commonwealth
cert
denied
justice
scalia
points
two
additional
texas
north
carolina
traditionally
kept
information
capital
defendant
parole
ineligibility
sentencing
jury
see
post
neither
however
life
without
parole
sentencing
alternative
capital
punishment
also
worthy
note
pursuant
recently
enacted
legislation
north
carolina
requires
trial
courts
instruct
capital
sentencing
juries
concerning
parole
eligibility
see
ch
public
opinion
juror
surveys
support
commonsense
understanding
reasonable
likelihood
juror
confusion
meaning
term
life
imprisonment
see
paduano
smith
deadly
errors
juror
misperceptions
concerning
parole
imposition
death
penalty
colum
human
rights
note
meaning
life
virginia
jurors
effect
reliability
capital
sentencing
eisenberg
wells
deadly
confusion
juror
instructions
capital
cases
cornell
bowers
capital
punishment
contemporary
values
people
misgivings
misperceptions
law
society
almost
goes
without
saying
jury
case
understood
plain
meaning
life
imprisonment
life
without
parole
south
carolina
reason
jury
inquire
petitioner
parole
eligibility
simmons
south
carolina
justice
souter
justice
stevens
joins
concurring
join
justice
blackmun
opinion
least
future
dangerousness
issue
capital
sentencing
determination
defendant
due
process
right
require
sentencing
jury
informed
ineligibility
parole
write
separately
believe
additional
related
principle
also
compels
today
decision
regardless
whether
future
dangerousness
issue
sentencing
eighth
amendment
entitles
defendant
jury
capable
reasoned
moral
judgment
whether
death
rather
lesser
sentence
imposed
explained
amendment
imposes
heightened
standard
reliability
determination
death
appropriate
punishment
specific
case
woodson
north
carolina
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
jj
see
also
godfrey
georgia
mills
maryland
thus
requires
provision
accurate
sentencing
information
indispensable
prerequisite
reasoned
determination
whether
defendant
shall
live
die
gregg
georgia
opinion
stewart
powell
simmons
south
carolina
stevens
jj
invalidates
procedural
rules
ten
diminish
reliability
sentencing
determination
beck
alabama
need
heightened
reliability
also
mandates
recognition
capital
defendant
right
require
instructions
meaning
legal
terms
used
describe
sentences
sentencing
recommendations
jury
required
consider
making
reasoned
moral
choice
sentencing
alternatives
thus
whenever
reasonable
likelihood
juror
misunderstand
sentencing
term
defendant
may
demand
instruction
meaning
death
sentence
following
refusal
request
vacated
arbitrarily
capriciously
wantonly
freakishly
imposed
furman
georgia
douglas
concurring
stewart
concurring
join
members
majority
holding
least
counsel
permitted
inform
jury
law
must
apply
see
ante
plurality
opinion
post
ginsburg
concurring
post
concurring
judgment
also
accept
general
rule
matters
law
arguments
counsel
effectively
substitute
statements
rguments
counsel
generally
carry
less
weight
jury
instructions
former
usually
billed
advance
jury
matters
argument
evidence
likely
viewed
statements
advocates
latter
often
recognized
viewed
definitive
binding
statements
law
boyde
california
citation
omitted
simmons
south
carolina
justice
blackmun
persuasively
demonstrates
juries
general
likely
misunderstand
meaning
term
life
imprisonment
given
context
see
ante
judge
must
tell
jury
term
means
defendant
requests
moreover
clear
least
one
particular
jurors
understand
meaning
term
since
jury
sent
note
judge
asking
imposition
life
sentence
carry
possibility
parole
ante
answer
easy
controlled
state
statute
judge
said
justice
blackmun
shows
instruction
actually
given
best
confusing
equivocal
direction
jury
basic
issue
bollenbach
reasonable
likelihood
jury
applied
challenged
instruction
way
violated
petitioner
rights
boyde
supra
effectively
withholding
jury
life
without
parole
alternative
trial
diminished
reliability
jury
decision
death
rather
alternative
appropriate
penalty
case
course
free
provide
protection
accused
constitution
requires
see
california
ramos
may
provide
less
south
carolina
reasons
well
set
forth
justice
blackmun
whose
opinion
join
judgment
south
carolina
must
reversed
simmons
south
carolina
justice
ginsburg
concurring
case
readily
resolved
core
requirement
due
process
right
heard
crane
kentucky
prosecution
urges
defendant
future
dangerousness
cause
death
sentence
defendant
right
heard
means
must
afforded
opportunity
rebut
argument
see
skipper
south
carolina
full
fair
opportunity
must
include
right
inform
jury
indeed
case
defendant
ineligible
parole
justice
blackmun
opinion
accord
justice
essential
point
see
ante
post
subsidiary
matter
justice
opinion
clarifies
due
process
requirement
met
relevant
information
intelligently
conveyed
jury
due
process
dictate
judge
rather
defense
counsel
provide
instruction
see
post
read
justice
blackmun
opinion
say
otherwise
note
trial
simmons
south
carolina
refused
instruct
jury
case
life
means
life
without
parole
also
ordered
petitioner
counsel
refrain
saying
anything
jury
parole
ineligibility
app
understandings
concur
justice
blackmun
opinion
compare
ante
refraining
addressing
simmons
eighth
amendment
claim
ante
souter
concurring
eighth
amendment
requires
judge
instruct
jury
simmons
south
carolina
parole
ineligibility
simmons
south
carolina
justice
chief
justice
justice
kennedy
join
concurring
judgment
capital
sentencing
proceedings
must
course
satisfy
dictates
due
process
clause
clemons
mississippi
one
hallmarks
due
process
adversary
system
defendant
ability
meet
state
case
cf
crane
kentucky
capital
cases
held
defendant
future
dangerousness
consideration
state
may
rely
seeking
death
penalty
see
california
ramos
prosecution
specifically
relies
prediction
future
dangerousness
asking
death
penalty
elemental
due
process
requirement
defendant
sentenced
death
basis
information
opportunity
deny
explain
requires
defendant
afforded
opportunity
introduce
evidence
point
skipper
south
carolina
quoting
gardner
florida
plurality
opinion
see
also
powell
concurring
judgment
simmons
south
carolina
unlike
skipper
defendant
sought
introduce
factual
evidence
tending
disprove
state
showing
future
dangerousness
see
powell
concurring
judgment
petitioner
sought
rely
operation
south
carolina
sentencing
law
arguing
pose
threat
community
sentenced
life
imprisonment
previously
noted
approval
however
state
courts
held
improper
jury
consider
informed
argument
instruction
possibility
commutation
pardon
parole
california
ramos
supra
decision
whether
inform
jury
possibility
early
release
generally
left
see
state
parole
available
constitution
require
preclude
jury
consideration
fact
likewise
prosecution
simmons
south
carolina
argue
future
dangerousness
state
may
appropriately
decide
parole
proper
issue
jury
consideration
even
alternative
sentence
death
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
state
seeks
show
defendant
future
dangerousness
however
fact
never
released
prison
often
way
violent
criminal
successfully
rebut
state
case
agree
case
defendant
allowed
bring
parole
ineligibility
jury
attention
way
argument
defense
counsel
instruction
means
responding
state
showing
future
dangerousness
despite
general
deference
state
decisions
regarding
jury
told
sentencing
agree
due
process
requires
defendant
allowed
cases
available
alternative
sentence
death
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
prosecution
argues
defendant
pose
threat
society
future
course
cases
prosecution
free
argue
defendant
dangerous
prison
state
may
also
though
need
inform
jury
truthful
information
regarding
availability
commutation
pardon
like
see
prosecutor
case
put
petitioner
future
dangerousness
issue
petitioner
permitted
argue
parole
ineligibility
capital
sentencing
jury
although
trial
judge
instructed
jurors
terms
life
imprisonment
death
sentence
understood
pla
ordinary
meaning
app
agree
instruction
satisfie
substance
petitioner
request
charge
parole
ineligibility
rejection
parole
many
federal
government
recent
simmons
south
carolina
development
displaces
longstanding
practice
parole
availability
see
ante
common
sense
tells
us
many
jurors
might
know
whether
life
sentence
carries
possibility
parole
may
come
pass
plain
ordinary
meaning
life
sentence
life
without
parole
jury
case
felt
compelled
ask
whether
parole
available
shows
jurors
know
whether
defendant
released
prison
moreover
prosecutor
referring
verdict
death
act
strongly
implied
petitioner
let
eventually
jury
recommend
death
sentence
state
puts
defendant
future
dangerousness
issue
available
alternative
sentence
death
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
due
process
entitles
defendant
inform
capital
sentencing
jury
either
argument
instruction
parole
ineligible
case
prosecution
argued
capital
sentencing
proceeding
petitioner
dangerous
future
although
alternative
sentence
death
state
law
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
petitioner
allowed
argue
jury
never
released
prison
trial
judge
instruction
communicate
information
jury
therefore
concur
judgment
petitioner
denied
due
process
law
constitutionally
entitled
simmons
south
carolina
justice
scalia
justice
thomas
joins
dissenting
today
judgment
certainly
seems
reasonable
enough
determination
capital
sentencing
jury
permitted
consider
however
purports
purports
determination
capital
sentencing
scheme
permit
jury
consideration
material
incompatible
national
traditions
criminal
procedure
violates
due
process
clause
constitution
really
basis
pronouncement
neither
near
uniform
practice
people
jurisprudence
respect
former
shall
discuss
current
practice
since
parties
amici
addressed
since
traditional
practice
may
relatively
uninformative
regard
new
schemes
capital
sentencing
imposed
upon
recent
jurisprudence
overwhelming
majority
permit
juries
impose
recommend
capital
sentences
allow
specific
information
regarding
parole
given
jury
sure
many
sentencing
choices
specifically
include
life
without
parole
jury
charge
simmons
south
carolina
conveys
information
whether
parole
available
least
eight
however
jury
choice
merely
life
without
parole
death
among
variation
parole
eligible
life
life
without
parole
death
precise
date
availability
parole
relevant
jury
choice
moreover
even
among
permit
jury
choose
life
unspecified
death
south
carolina
alone
keeping
parole
information
jury
four
widely
separated
parts
country
follow
course
lack
clear
practice
contrast
parties
amici
point
ten
arguably
employ
procedure
according
today
opinions
constitution
requires
picture
national
practice
simmons
south
carolina
falls
far
short
demonstrating
principle
widely
shared
part
even
current
temporary
american
consensus
prior
jurisprudence
opinions
justice
blackmun
justice
rely
fourteenth
amendment
guarantee
due
process
rather
eighth
amendment
cruel
unusual
punishments
prohibition
applied
fourteenth
amendment
cf
ante
souter
concurring
prior
law
applicable
subject
indicates
petitioner
due
process
rights
violated
sentenced
death
basis
information
opportunity
deny
explain
skipper
south
carolina
quoting
gardner
florida
opinions
try
bring
case
within
description
fit
opinions
paint
picture
prosecutor
repeatedly
stressed
petitioner
pose
threat
society
upon
release
record
tells
different
story
rather
emphasizing
future
dangerousness
crucial
factor
prosecutor
stressed
nature
petitioner
crimes
crime
subject
prosecution
brutal
murder
woman
home
three
prior
crimes
confessed
petitioner
rapes
beatings
elderly
women
one
grandmother
sure
sheer
depravity
crimes
rather
specific
fear
simmons
south
carolina
future
induced
south
carolina
jury
conclude
death
penalty
justice
moreover
future
dangerousness
emphasized
future
dangerousness
outside
prison
even
mentioned
trial
judge
undertook
specifically
prevent
response
broader
request
petitioner
counsel
prosecutor
prevented
arguing
future
dangerousness
obviously
listen
carefully
argument
solicitor
see
contravenes
actual
factual
circumstance
certainly
recognize
right
state
argue
concerning
defendant
dangerous
propensity
allow
solicitor
example
say
jury
anything
indicate
defendant
going
jailed
period
time
encompassed
within
actual
law
fact
submit
parole
eligibility
jury
negate
fact
solicitor
must
stay
within
trial
record
app
justice
blackmun
justice
focus
two
portions
prosecutor
final
argument
jury
sentencing
phase
first
stress
prosecutor
asked
jury
answer
question
petitioner
midst
statement
however
made
imply
course
argument
future
dangerousness
response
petitioner
mitigating
evidence
read
context
statement
even
relevant
issue
case
defense
case
sentence
diversion
putting
blame
society
father
grandmother
whoever
else
simmons
south
carolina
spreading
avoid
personal
responsibility
came
deprived
background
breaks
life
certainly
helps
shape
someone
concerned
got
shaped
concerned
midst
verdict
returned
anger
verdict
emotional
catharsis
verdict
response
kid
testifying
mitigation
really
response
gruesome
grotesque
handiwork
petitioner
verdict
response
society
someone
threat
verdict
act
rule
majority
adopts
order
overturn
sentence
therefore
goes
well
beyond
necessary
counteract
prosecutorial
misconduct
disposition
might
agree
rule
least
sweeping
due
process
clause
overrides
state
law
limiting
admissibility
information
simmons
south
carolina
concerning
parole
whenever
prosecution
argues
future
dangerousness
justice
blackmun
appears
go
even
requiring
admission
parole
ineligibility
even
prosecutor
argue
future
dangerousness
see
ante
see
ante
ginsburg
concurring
understand
basis
broad
prescription
general
matter
leaves
strike
consider
appropriate
balance
among
many
factors
probative
value
prejudice
reliability
potential
confusion
among
others
determine
whether
evidence
admissible
even
capital
punishment
context
noted
wisdom
decision
permit
juror
consideration
contingencies
best
left
california
ramos
retain
traditional
authority
determine
particular
evidence
relevant
skipper
south
carolina
powell
concurring
one
reason
leaving
way
sensible
code
evidence
invented
piecemeal
item
considered
isolation
must
given
place
within
whole
preventing
defense
introducing
evidence
regarding
parolability
half
rule
prevents
prosecution
introducing
well
rule
changed
defendants
many
think
evenhandedness
demands
change
prosecutors
well
state
attorneys
able
say
ladies
gentlemen
jury
impose
capital
punishment
upon
defendant
impose
anything
less
life
without
parole
may
walking
streets
eight
years
many
favor
admission
argument
prefer
state
scheme
defendants
call
attention
unavailability
parole
prosecutors
note
availability
force
simmons
south
carolina
state
legislators
difficult
choice
unless
isolated
state
evidentiary
rule
merely
less
ideal
beyond
high
threshold
unconstitutionality
low
threshold
constructs
today
difficult
reconcile
almost
simultaneous
decision
romano
oklahoma
holds
proper
inquiry
evidence
admitted
contravention
state
law
whether
admission
evidence
infected
sentencing
proceedings
unfairness
render
jury
imposition
death
penalty
denial
due
process
slip
see
unconstitutionality
criterion
excluding
evidence
accordance
state
law
less
demanding
unconstitutionality
criterion
romano
recites
admitting
evidence
violation
state
law
fundamental
unfairness
fundamentally
unfair
south
carolina
rule
assuredly
notion
south
carolina
jury
imposed
death
penalty
case
simmons
might
released
parole
seems
quite
notion
decision
taken
grounds
altered
information
current
state
law
concerning
parole
course
amended
even
scenario
achieves
ultimate
added
fact
according
uncontroverted
testimony
prison
officials
case
even
current
south
carolina
law
opposed
discretionary
prison
regulations
prohibit
furloughs
work
release
programs
inmates
see
app
prosecution
specifically
suggested
parolability
see
reason
constitution
compel
admission
evidence
showing
state
current
law
defendant
nonparolable
compel
simmons
south
carolina
admission
evidence
showing
parolable
life
sentence
murderers
fact
almost
never
paroled
paroled
age
evidence
effect
escapes
life
without
parole
inmates
rare
evidence
showing
though
current
law
defendant
parolable
years
recidivism
rate
elderly
prisoners
released
long
incarceration
negligible
evidence
may
thought
relevant
whether
death
penalty
imposed
petition
raising
last
claims
already
arrived
see
pet
cert
rudd
texas
said
outset
regime
imposed
today
judgment
undoubtedly
reasonable
matter
policy
see
nothing
indicate
constitution
requires
followed
fear
read
today
first
page
whole
new
chapter
death
different
jurisprudence
apparently
continuous
process
composing
adds
insistence
state
courts
admit
relevant
mitigating
evidence
see
eddings
oklahoma
lockett
ohio
requirement
adhere
distinctive
rules
demanding
due
process
clause
normally
requires
admitting
evidence
sorts
federal
rules
death
penalty
evidence
speak
presumably
craft
great
expense
swiftness
predictability
justice
year
year
heavily
outnumbered
opponents
capital
punishment
successfully
opened
yet
another
front
guerilla
war
make
unquestionably
constitutional
sentence
practical
impossibility
dissent
eight
georgia
see
ann
supp
indiana
see
maryland
see
art
supp
nevada
see
oklahoma
see
tit
supp
oregon
see
supp
tennessee
see
ann
supp
utah
see
utah
code
ann
supp
four
pennsylvania
see
commonwealth
henry
texas
see
jones
state
virginia
see
eaton
commonwealth
north
carolina
see
state
brown
alter
practice
effective
january
see
laws
ch
allow
jury
choose
life
without
parole
death
squarely
decided
whether
jury
receive
information
parole
include
south
dakota
see
codified
laws
wyoming
see
supp
ten
identified
parties
amici
colorado
see
supp
florida
see
standard
jury
instructions
criminal
cases
report
illinois
see
people
gacho
maryland
see
doering
state
md
simmons
south
carolina
mississippi
see
turner
state
miss
new
jersey
see
state
martini
new
mexico
see
state
henderson
nevada
see
petrocelli
state
oklahoma
see
humphrey
state
oregon
see
brief
state
idaho
et
al
amici
curiae
page