pulley
harris
argued
november
decided
january
respondent
convicted
capital
crime
california
sentenced
death
california
affirmed
rejecting
claim
california
capital
punishment
statute
invalid
federal
constitution
failed
require
california
compare
respondent
sentence
sentences
imposed
similar
capital
cases
thereby
determine
whether
proportionate
habeas
corpus
relief
denied
state
courts
respondent
sought
habeas
corpus
federal
district
contending
denied
comparative
proportionality
review
assertedly
required
constitution
district
denied
writ
appeals
held
comparative
proportionality
review
constitutionally
required
held
merit
respondent
contention
appeals
judgment
affirmed
solely
ground
state
decisional
law
entitles
comparative
proportionality
review
federal
may
issue
writ
habeas
corpus
basis
perceived
error
state
law
rejecting
respondent
demand
proportionality
review
california
suggest
way
departing
state
precedent
moreover
respondent
claim
evolution
state
law
enjoy
kind
proportionality
review
far
denied
state
courts
consider
matter
inclined
free
constraints
federal
writ
habeas
corpus
pp
eighth
amendment
require
invariable
rule
every
case
state
appellate
affirms
death
sentence
compare
sentence
case
penalties
imposed
similar
cases
requested
prisoner
pp
cases
require
comparative
proportionality
review
appellate
every
capital
case
outcome
gregg
georgia
upholding
georgia
statutory
scheme
required
comparative
proportionality
review
proffitt
florida
upholding
florida
scheme
appellate
performed
proportionality
review
despite
absence
statutory
requirement
hinge
proportionality
review
schemes
providing
proportionality
review
constitutional
mean
review
indispensable
moreover
jurek
texas
upheld
texas
scheme
even
though
neither
statute
state
case
law
provided
comparative
proportionality
review
pp
assuming
capital
sentencing
system
lacking
checks
arbitrariness
pass
constitutional
muster
without
comparative
proportionality
review
california
statute
involved
sort
pp
white
delivered
opinion
burger
blackmun
powell
rehnquist
joined
part
iii
stevens
joined
stevens
filed
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
post
brennan
filed
dissenting
opinion
marshall
joined
post
michael
wellington
deputy
attorney
general
california
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
john
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
daniel
kremer
chief
assistant
attorney
general
steven
adler
deputy
attorney
general
harley
mayfield
assistant
attorney
general
anthony
amsterdam
argued
cause
respondent
brief
quin
denvir
charles
sevilla
ezra
hendon
michael
mccabe
charles
pulaski
filed
brief
national
council
crime
delinquency
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
white
delivered
opinion
respondent
harris
convicted
capital
crime
california
sentenced
death
along
many
challenges
conviction
sentence
harris
claimed
appeal
california
capital
punishment
statute
invalid
constitution
failed
require
california
compare
harris
sentence
sentences
imposed
similar
capital
cases
thereby
determine
whether
proportionate
rejecting
constitutional
claims
citation
earlier
cases
california
affirmed
people
harris
cal
denied
certiorari
harris
sought
writ
habeas
corpus
state
courts
complained
failure
provide
comparative
proportionality
review
writ
denied
without
opinion
denied
certiorari
harris
california
harris
next
sought
habeas
corpus
district
southern
district
california
pressing
claim
among
others
denied
comparative
proportionality
review
assertedly
required
constitution
district
denied
writ
refused
stay
harris
execution
issued
certificate
probable
cause
appeals
holding
proportionality
review
demanded
harris
constitutionally
required
vacated
judgment
district
ordered
writ
issue
relieving
harris
death
sentence
unless
within
days
california
undertook
determine
whether
penalty
imposed
harris
proportionate
sentences
imposed
similar
crimes
granted
state
petition
certiorari
presenting
question
whether
proportionality
review
mandated
appeals
required
constitution
harris
concedes
appeals
judgment
rested
federal
constitutional
ground
nonetheless
contends
affirm
judgment
effect
returning
case
state
courts
state
law
may
entitle
comparative
proportionality
review
unsuccessfully
demanded
unimpressed
submission
writ
habeas
corpus
disturbing
judgment
may
issue
found
prisoner
custody
violation
constitution
laws
treaties
federal
may
issue
writ
basis
perceived
error
state
law
even
error
state
law
sufficiently
egregious
amount
denial
equal
protection
due
process
law
guaranteed
fourteenth
amendment
harris
submission
persuasive
relies
people
frierson
cal
people
jackson
cal
proposition
proportionality
review
extended
matter
state
law
since
deciding
cases
california
twice
rejected
harris
demand
proportionality
review
without
suggesting
way
departing
precedent
indeed
direct
review
indicated
harris
constitutional
claims
adversely
decided
cases
finally
harris
claim
evolution
state
law
enjoy
kind
proportionality
review
far
denied
claim
even
accurate
warrant
issuing
writ
habeas
corpus
rather
appear
matter
state
courts
consider
inclined
free
constraints
federal
writ
accordingly
deem
necessary
reach
constitutional
question
certiorari
granted
ii
outset
clearly
identify
issue
us
traditionally
proportionality
used
reference
abstract
evaluation
appropriateness
sentence
particular
crime
looking
gravity
offense
severity
penalty
sentences
imposed
crimes
sentencing
practices
jurisdictions
occasionally
struck
punishments
inherently
disproportionate
therefore
cruel
unusual
imposed
particular
crime
category
crime
see
solem
helm
enmund
florida
coker
georgia
death
penalty
cases
disproportionate
penalty
sense
gregg
georgia
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
jj
white
concurring
judgment
proportionality
review
sought
harris
required
appeals
provided
numerous
state
statutes
different
sort
sort
proportionality
review
presumes
death
sentence
disproportionate
crime
traditional
sense
purports
inquire
instead
whether
penalty
nonetheless
unacceptable
particular
case
disproportionate
punishment
imposed
others
convicted
crime
issue
case
therefore
whether
eighth
amendment
applicable
fourteenth
amendment
requires
state
appellate
affirms
death
sentence
compare
sentence
case
penalties
imposed
similar
cases
requested
prisoner
harris
insists
invariable
rule
every
case
apparently
appeals
view
agree
iii
harris
submission
rooted
furman
georgia
furman
concluded
capital
punishment
administered
statutes
vesting
unguided
sentencing
discretion
juries
trial
judges
become
unconstitutionally
cruel
unusual
punishment
death
penalty
imposed
discriminatorily
douglas
concurring
wantonly
freakishly
stewart
concurring
infrequently
white
concurring
given
death
sentence
cruel
unusual
response
decision
roughly
promptly
redrafted
capital
sentencing
statutes
effort
limit
jury
discretion
avoid
arbitrary
inconsistent
results
new
statutes
provide
automatic
appeal
death
sentences
georgia
require
reviewing
extent
least
determine
whether
considering
crime
defendant
sentence
disproportionate
imposed
similar
cases
every
state
adopted
procedure
florida
appellate
performs
proportionality
review
despite
absence
statutory
requirement
others
california
texas
four
years
furman
examined
several
new
state
statutes
upheld
one
three
sorts
mentioned
see
gregg
georgia
supra
proffitt
florida
jurek
texas
needless
say
schemes
providing
proportionality
review
constitutional
mean
review
indispensable
take
statutes
find
endorse
statute
whole
say
anything
different
unacceptable
said
gregg
intend
suggest
procedures
permissible
furman
sentencing
system
constructed
along
general
lines
inevitably
satisfy
concerns
furman
distinct
system
must
examined
individual
basis
omitted
examination
cases
makes
clear
establish
proportionality
review
constitutional
requirement
gregg
six
justices
concluded
georgia
system
adequately
directed
limited
jury
discretion
bifurcated
proceedings
limited
number
capital
crimes
requirement
least
one
aggravating
circumstance
present
consideration
mitigating
circumstances
minimized
risk
wholly
arbitrary
capricious
freakish
sentences
opinion
announcing
judgment
three
justices
concluded
sentencing
discretion
statute
sufficiently
controlled
clear
objective
standards
separate
concurrence
three
justices
found
sufficient
reason
expect
death
penalty
imposed
wantonly
freakishly
infrequently
invalid
furman
opinions
made
much
statutorily
required
comparative
proportionality
review
considered
additional
safeguard
arbitrary
capricious
sentencing
opinion
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
suggested
form
meaningful
appellate
review
required
justices
declare
comparative
review
critical
without
georgia
statute
passed
constitutional
muster
indeed
summarizing
components
adequate
capital
sentencing
scheme
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
mention
comparative
review
concerns
expressed
furman
met
carefully
drafted
statute
ensures
sentencing
authority
given
adequate
information
guidance
general
proposition
concerns
best
met
system
provides
bifurcated
proceeding
sentencing
authority
apprised
information
relevant
imposition
sentence
provided
standards
guide
use
information
even
less
basis
reliance
proffitt
florida
supra
florida
statute
provides
bifurcated
procedure
forecloses
death
penalty
unless
sentencing
authority
finds
least
one
eight
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
present
outweighed
mitigating
circumstances
joint
opinion
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
observed
florida
scheme
like
georgia
counterpart
requires
sentencer
focus
individual
circumstances
homicide
defendant
also
vesting
ultimate
sentencing
authority
judge
rather
jury
statute
expected
yield
consistent
sentencing
trial
level
concluding
trial
judges
given
specific
detailed
guidance
assist
deciding
whether
impose
death
penalty
opinion
observe
death
sentences
reviewed
ensure
consistent
sentences
imposed
similar
cases
opinion
concurring
judgment
filed
three
justices
approved
florida
statute
without
even
mentioning
appellate
review
gregg
proffitt
establish
constitutional
requirement
proportionality
review
made
clearer
jurek
texas
decided
day
jurek
upheld
death
sentence
even
though
neither
statute
georgia
state
case
law
florida
provided
comparative
proportionality
review
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
emphasizing
limits
jury
discretion
concluded
texas
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
harris
also
relies
zant
stephens
announced
appeals
decision
case
zant
depart
gregg
question
jurek
indeed
jurek
cited
support
decision
emphasizing
importance
mandatory
appellate
review
georgia
statute
hold
without
comparative
proportionality
review
statute
unconstitutional
contrary
relied
jury
finding
aggravating
circumstances
state
finding
proportionality
rationalizing
sentence
thus
emphasis
constitutionally
necessary
narrowing
function
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
proportionality
review
considered
additional
safeguard
arbitrarily
imposed
death
sentences
certainly
hold
comparative
review
constitutionally
required
thus
basis
cases
holding
comparative
proportionality
review
appellate
required
every
case
death
penalty
imposed
defendant
requests
indeed
hold
effectively
overrule
jurek
substantially
depart
sense
gregg
proffitt
persuaded
eighth
amendment
requires
us
take
course
iv
assuming
capital
sentencing
system
lacking
checks
arbitrariness
pass
constitutional
muster
without
comparative
proportionality
review
california
statute
sort
scheme
person
convicted
murder
sentenced
life
imprisonment
unless
one
special
circumstances
found
case
punishment
either
death
life
imprisonment
without
parole
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
special
circumstances
alleged
charging
paper
tried
issue
guilt
initial
phase
trial
close
evidence
jury
decides
guilt
innocence
determines
whether
special
circumstances
alleged
present
special
circumstance
must
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
jury
finds
defendant
guilty
murder
finds
least
one
special
circumstance
trial
proceeds
second
phase
determine
appropriate
penalty
additional
evidence
may
offered
jury
given
list
relevant
factors
heard
received
evidence
trier
fact
shall
consider
take
account
guided
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
referred
section
shall
determine
whether
penalty
shall
death
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
ibid
jury
returns
verdict
death
defendant
deemed
move
modify
verdict
trial
judge
reviews
evidence
light
statutory
factors
makes
independent
determination
whether
weight
evidence
supports
jury
findings
verdicts
ibid
judge
required
state
record
reasons
findings
ibid
trial
judge
denies
motion
modification
automatic
appeal
statute
require
comparative
proportionality
review
otherwise
describe
nature
appeal
state
trial
judge
refusal
modify
sentence
shall
reviewed
seem
include
review
evidence
relied
judge
california
said
statutory
requirements
jury
specify
special
circumstances
permit
imposition
death
penalty
trial
judge
specify
reasons
denying
modification
death
penalty
serve
assure
thoughtful
effective
appellate
review
focusing
upon
circumstances
present
particular
case
people
frierson
cal
reduced
death
sentence
life
imprisonment
evidence
support
findings
special
circumstances
people
thompson
cal
requiring
jury
find
least
one
special
circumstance
beyond
reasonable
doubt
statute
limits
death
sentence
small
subclass
cases
statutory
list
relevant
factors
applied
defendants
within
subclass
provide
jury
guidance
lessen
chance
arbitrary
application
death
penalty
guarantee
ing
jury
discretion
guided
consideration
deliberate
jury
discretion
must
suitably
directed
limited
minimize
risk
wholly
arbitrary
capricious
action
gregg
decision
reviewed
trial
judge
state
face
system
without
requirement
practice
comparative
proportionality
review
successfully
challenged
furman
subsequent
cases
capital
sentencing
scheme
may
occasionally
produce
aberrational
outcomes
inconsistencies
far
cry
major
systemic
defects
identified
furman
acknowledged
past
perfect
procedure
deciding
cases
governmental
authority
used
impose
death
zant
stephens
quoting
lockett
ohio
plurality
opinion
presently
informed
say
california
procedures
provided
harris
inadequate
protection
evil
identified
furman
appeals
therefore
erred
ordering
writ
habeas
corpus
issue
judgment
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
confusion
whether
harris
sought
proportionality
review
direct
appeal
record
filed
us
contains
copy
appellate
brief
brief
largely
identical
federal
habeas
petition
also
record
infer
state
petition
appellate
brief
harris
argued
california
scheme
constitutionally
defective
failure
establish
proportionality
review
mechanism
habeas
petitions
also
included
affidavit
detailing
perceived
inconsistencies
california
capital
sentencing
identifying
similar
cases
death
sentence
imposed
affidavit
presented
california
direct
appeal
three
justices
joined
opinion
justice
tobriner
concurred
note
considered
death
penalty
statute
unconstitutional
felt
bound
previous
ruling
dissented
chief
justice
bird
joined
justice
mosk
dissented
ground
pretrial
publicity
denied
respondent
fair
trial
rejected
harris
constitutional
challenges
california
statute
first
found
list
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
adequately
limited
jury
discretion
even
though
factors
identified
aggravating
mitigating
even
though
jury
allowed
consider
nonstatutory
factors
second
held
constitutional
requirement
appropriateness
death
penalty
established
beyond
reasonable
doubt
third
written
findings
jury
constitutionally
required
least
california
judge
provides
statement
remanded
however
possible
evidentiary
hearing
harris
claim
death
penalty
discriminatorily
administered
california
closer
look
record
determine
whether
california
conclusion
pretrial
publicity
unfairly
prejudicial
adequately
supported
none
california
many
reversals
capital
cases
based
finding
sentence
disproportionate
imposed
similar
defendants
similar
crimes
aware
one
case
beside
one
affirmed
death
sentence
imposed
later
statute
people
jackson
cal
proportionality
review
sort
issue
conducted
case
oral
argument
counsel
respondent
pointed
people
dillon
cal
example
california
evolving
practice
proportionality
review
reduced
murder
conviction
carrying
life
sentence
conviction
relied
part
disparity
dillon
punishment
received
six
participants
crime
dillon
death
case
involve
comparison
hardly
signifies
established
practice
proportionality
review
appeals
noted
distinction
proportionality
death
penalty
crime
imposed
proportionality
given
defendant
sentence
sentences
imposed
similar
crimes
latter
proportionality
review
concerns
us
georgia
scheme
example
required
every
case
determine
hether
sentence
death
excessive
disproportionate
penalty
imposed
similar
cases
considering
crime
defendant
code
ann
affirms
death
sentence
include
decision
reference
similar
cases
taken
consideration
required
maintain
records
capital
felony
cases
death
penalty
imposed
since
justice
stevens
implies
joint
opinion
proffitt
really
understand
florida
conduct
comparative
proportionality
review
post
reading
opinion
course
support
interpretation
proffitt
share
opinion
stated
florida
considered
function
georgia
counterpart
review
particular
sentence
light
decisions
determine
whether
punishment
great
quoting
state
dixon
thus
sentencing
decisions
reviewed
ensure
consistent
sentences
imposed
similar
circumstances
justice
stevens
notes
opinion
went
point
florida
several
times
compared
circumstances
case
review
previous
cases
assessed
imposition
death
sentences
citations
omitted
following
procedure
florida
effect
adopted
type
proportionality
review
mandated
georgia
statute
natural
reading
language
authors
believed
florida
conduct
proportionality
review
indeed
florida
one
interpreted
mccaskill
state
acknowledging
present
florida
undertakes
provide
proportionality
review
every
case
see
brown
wainwright
cert
denied
justice
stevens
says
always
practice
citing
long
list
cases
review
explicitly
performed
post
florida
undeniably
become
enthusiastic
least
explicit
proportionality
review
recent
years
see
williams
state
adams
state
however
comparative
proportionality
review
part
least
theory
appellate
review
florida
since
enactment
state
first
capital
punishment
statute
endorsed
first
case
decided
statute
see
state
dixon
supra
frequently
acknowledged
performed
thereafter
see
alvord
state
alford
state
lamadline
state
florida
recently
stated
since
inception
new
death
penalty
statute
engaged
proportionality
review
death
cases
ensure
rationality
consistency
imposition
death
penalty
sullivan
state
citing
state
dixon
supra
justice
stevens
points
florida
conducted
express
review
proportionality
every
capital
sentence
reviewed
worth
bearing
mind
many
decisions
cites
reversed
death
sentence
examining
circumstances
particular
case
proportionality
review
therefore
superfluous
fact
others
explicit
comparative
review
mean
none
undertaken
see
messer
state
acknowledging
proportionality
review
requirement
rejecting
assertion
written
opinion
must
explicitly
compare
death
sentence
past
capital
cases
event
critical
question
proffitt
thought
florida
scheme
regard
joint
opinion
speaks
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
procedure
guides
focuses
jury
objective
consideration
particularized
circumstances
individual
offense
individual
offender
impose
sentence
death
revised
law
substantive
crime
murder
defined
murder
occurs
one
five
circumstances
set
statute
death
penalty
must
imposed
jury
also
makes
certain
additional
findings
defendant
petitioner
claims
additional
questions
upon
death
sentence
depends
vague
essence
jury
possesses
standardless
sentencing
power
agree
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
issues
posed
sentencing
proceeding
core
meaning
criminal
juries
capable
understanding
statute
extend
juries
discretionary
power
dispense
mercy
assumed
juries
disobey
nullify
instructions
february
year
persons
including
petitioner
sentenced
death
texas
murder
statute
conclude
juncture
death
penalty
system
imposed
seldom
arbitrarily
serve
useful
penological
function
hence
fall
within
reach
decision
announced
five
members
furman
georgia
texas
capital
punishment
statute
limits
imposition
death
penalty
narrowly
defined
group
brutal
crimes
aims
limiting
imposition
similar
offenses
occurring
similar
circumstances
white
joined
burger
rehnquist
concurring
judgment
see
also
woodson
north
carolina
rehnquist
dissenting
wish
undertake
effort
proportionality
review
undoubtedly
free
surely
required
constitution
upheld
death
sentence
even
though
state
invalidated
unconstitutionally
vague
one
three
aggravating
circumstances
relied
jury
two
remaining
circumstances
adequately
differentiate
case
objective
evenhanded
substantively
rational
way
many
georgia
murder
cases
death
penalty
may
imposed
briefly
statutory
special
circumstances
murder
profit
murder
perpetrated
explosive
victim
police
officer
killed
line
duty
victim
witness
crime
killed
prevent
testifying
criminal
proceeding
murder
committed
commission
robbery
kidnapping
rape
performance
lewd
lascivious
act
someone
burglary
murder
involved
torture
defendant
previously
convicted
murder
convicted
one
murder
first
second
degree
instant
proceeding
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
greatly
expanded
current
statute
see
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
statute
separate
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
section
provides
determining
penalty
trier
fact
shall
take
account
following
factors
relevant
circumstances
crime
defendant
convicted
present
proceeding
existence
special
circumstances
found
true
pursuant
presence
absence
criminal
activity
defendant
involved
use
attempted
use
force
violence
expressed
implied
threat
use
force
violence
whether
offense
committed
defendant
influence
extreme
mental
emotional
disturbance
whether
victim
participant
defendant
homicidal
conduct
consented
homicidal
act
whether
offense
committed
circumstances
defendant
reasonably
believed
moral
justification
extenuation
conduct
whether
defendant
acted
extreme
duress
substantial
domination
another
person
whether
time
offense
capacity
defendant
appreciate
criminality
conduct
conform
conduct
requirements
law
impaired
result
mental
disease
effects
intoxication
age
defendant
time
crime
whether
defendant
accomplice
offense
participation
commission
offense
relatively
minor
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
provision
automatic
appeal
texas
statute
considered
jurek
similarly
silent
exact
nature
appeal
justice
stevens
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
agree
basic
conclusion
part
iii
opinion
case
law
establish
constitutional
requirement
comparative
proportionality
review
conducted
appellate
every
case
death
penalty
imposed
understanding
decisions
gregg
georgia
proffitt
florida
jurek
texas
zant
stephens
sufficiently
different
reflected
part
iii
prevent
joining
portion
opinion
cases
relied
upon
respondent
establish
comparative
proportionality
review
constitutionally
required
element
capital
sentencing
system
believe
case
law
establish
appellate
review
plays
essential
role
eliminating
systemic
arbitrariness
capriciousness
infected
death
penalty
schemes
invalidated
furman
georgia
hence
form
meaningful
appellate
review
constitutionally
required
systemic
arbitrariness
capriciousness
imposition
capital
punishment
statutory
schemes
invalidated
furman
resulted
two
basic
defects
schemes
first
systems
permitting
imposition
capital
punishment
broad
classes
offenses
penalty
always
constitute
cruel
unusual
punishment
second
even
among
types
homicides
death
penalty
constitutionally
imposed
punishment
schemes
vested
essentially
unfettered
discretion
juries
trial
judges
impose
death
sentence
given
defects
arbitrariness
capriciousness
imposition
punishment
inevitable
given
extreme
nature
punishment
constitutionally
intolerable
statutes
approved
gregg
proffitt
jurek
designed
eliminate
defects
scheme
provided
effective
mechanism
categorically
narrowing
class
offenses
death
penalty
imposed
provided
special
procedural
safeguards
including
appellate
review
sentencing
authority
decision
impose
death
penalty
gregg
opinion
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
indicated
form
meaningful
appellate
review
required
see
opinion
well
justice
white
opinion
see
focused
proportionality
review
component
georgia
statute
prominent
innovative
noteworthy
feature
specifically
designed
combat
effectively
systemic
problems
capital
sentencing
invalidated
prior
georgia
capital
sentencing
scheme
observations
innovation
effective
safeguard
mean
method
ensuring
death
sentences
imposed
capriciously
acceptable
form
appellate
review
proffitt
joint
opinion
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
explicitly
recognized
florida
law
differs
georgia
require
conduct
specific
form
review
opinion
observed
however
meaningful
appellate
review
made
possible
requirement
trial
judge
justify
imposition
death
sentence
written
findings
observed
florida
indicated
death
sentences
reviewed
ensure
consistent
sentences
imposed
similar
cases
florida
practice
described
proffitt
opinion
appellate
review
routinely
involved
independent
analysis
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
particular
case
later
opinion
response
proffitt
argument
florida
appellate
review
process
subjective
unpredictable
noted
state
several
times
compared
circumstances
case
review
previous
cases
death
sentence
imposed
following
procedure
florida
effect
adopted
type
proportionality
review
mandated
georgia
statute
however
indicate
particular
procedure
followed
several
times
either
invariable
routine
florida
indispensable
feature
meaningful
appellate
review
texas
statute
reviewed
jurek
like
florida
statute
reviewed
proffitt
provide
comparative
review
nevertheless
concluded
texas
procedures
like
georgia
florida
constitutional
assured
sentences
death
wantonly
freakishly
imposed
assurance
rested
part
statutory
guarantee
meaningful
appellate
review
stated
providing
prompt
judicial
review
jury
decision
statewide
jurisdiction
texas
provided
means
promote
evenhanded
rational
consistent
imposition
death
sentences
law
ibid
last
term
zant
stephens
reviewed
georgia
sentencing
scheme
observed
appellate
review
every
death
penalty
proceeding
determine
whether
sentence
arbitrary
disproportionate
one
two
primary
features
upon
gregg
joint
opinion
approval
georgia
scheme
rested
focus
comparative
review
element
scheme
reaffirming
constitutionality
georgia
statute
appellate
review
sentencing
decision
deemed
essential
upholding
constitutionality
fact
georgia
reviewed
sentence
question
determine
whether
arbitrary
excessive
disproportionate
relied
upon
reject
contention
statute
invalid
applied
absence
standards
guide
jury
weighing
significance
aggravating
circumstances
describing
proportionality
review
omitted
mandatory
appellate
review
also
relied
upon
rejecting
argument
subsequent
invalidation
one
aggravating
circumstances
found
jury
required
setting
aside
death
sentence
proportionality
review
viewed
effective
additional
safeguard
arbitrary
capricious
death
sentences
hold
comparative
proportionality
review
mandated
component
constitutionally
acceptable
capital
sentencing
system
decision
certainly
recognized
plain
gregg
proffitt
jurek
form
meaningful
appellate
review
essential
safeguard
arbitrary
capricious
imposition
death
sentences
individual
juries
judges
summarize
statutory
schemes
approved
prior
cases
scheme
review
today
meaningful
appellate
review
indispensable
component
determination
state
capital
sentencing
procedure
valid
like
however
persuaded
particular
form
review
prescribed
statute
georgia
comparative
proportionality
review
method
appellate
avoid
danger
imposition
death
sentence
particular
case
particular
class
cases
extraordinary
violate
eighth
amendment
accordingly
join
part
iii
opinion
concur
judgment
course
regular
practice
florida
proffitt
decided
proportionality
review
conducted
following
decisions
jones
state
per
curiam
reversing
death
sentence
unwarranted
circumstances
particular
case
henry
state
per
curiam
affirming
death
sentence
weighing
circumstances
case
cert
denied
douglas
state
cert
denied
thompson
state
quotes
language
state
dixon
concerning
review
light
prior
decisions
reverses
death
sentence
without
considering
cases
instead
based
facts
case
adkins
concurring
specially
maintaining
affirmance
merited
based
agreement
weighing
circumstances
performed
trial
judge
dobbert
state
affirming
death
sentence
without
proportionality
review
opinion
agree
trial
judge
general
remark
crime
atrocious
personal
knowledge
aff
halliwell
state
per
curiam
reversing
death
sentence
based
weighing
circumstances
particular
case
tedder
state
establishing
special
standard
review
reviewing
imposition
death
sentence
jury
recommendation
life
sentence
reversing
death
sentence
circumstances
particular
case
swan
state
gardner
state
affirming
death
sentence
based
weighing
circumstances
case
cert
denied
spinkellink
state
cert
denied
sawyer
state
cert
denied
hallman
state
per
curiam
cert
denied
sullivan
state
specially
concurring
opinion
joined
five
justices
citing
dixon
proposition
responsibility
independently
determine
whether
death
penalty
warranted
proceeds
affirm
death
sentence
based
assessment
circumstances
case
cert
denied
taylor
state
reversing
death
sentence
based
weighing
circumstances
particular
case
moreover
opinions
issued
shortly
proffitt
reveal
similar
absence
comparative
proportionality
review
adams
state
affirming
death
sentence
citing
dixon
proposition
role
independently
review
circumstances
particular
case
determine
whether
death
sentence
warranted
cert
denied
funchess
state
affirming
death
sentence
weighing
circumstances
case
cert
denied
chambers
state
per
curiam
reversing
death
sentence
based
circumstances
case
meeks
state
per
curiam
affirming
death
sentence
compares
sentence
accomplice
affirms
ground
sentence
warranted
circumstances
particular
case
cert
denied
knight
state
affirming
death
sentence
weighing
circumstances
case
meeks
state
see
also
cooper
state
cert
denied
florida
undertakes
provide
proportionality
review
every
case
see
brown
wainwright
cert
denied
noted
proffitt
practice
provide
function
death
sentence
review
maximum
rationality
consistency
fact
practice
especially
good
one
however
mean
indispensable
element
meaningful
appellate
review
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
joins
dissenting
almost
years
ago
furman
georgia
concluded
death
penalty
administered
various
state
federal
statutes
constituted
cruel
unusual
punishment
prohibited
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
time
convinced
death
sentences
imposed
manner
arbitrary
capricious
individual
death
sentence
constitutionally
justified
four
years
later
faced
new
death
penalty
statutes
enacted
georgia
florida
texas
majority
concluded
procedural
mechanisms
included
statutes
provided
sufficient
protection
ensure
constitutional
application
see
gregg
georgia
proffitt
florida
jurek
texas
thus
began
series
decisions
exceptions
assumed
death
penalty
imposed
various
rational
way
upon
available
evidence
however
convinced
simply
deluding
also
american
public
insists
defendants
already
executed
today
condemned
death
selected
basis
neither
arbitrary
capricious
meaningful
definition
terms
moreover
case
concludes
proportionality
review
death
sentence
constitutionally
unnecessary
presumably
even
comparative
review
death
sentences
imposed
similarly
situated
defendants
might
eliminate
small
part
irrationality
currently
surrounds
imposition
death
penalty
view
evidence
available
suggests
proportionality
review
serve
limited
purpose
believe
state
california
statewide
jurisdiction
required
undertake
proportionality
review
examining
death
sentence
appeal
furman
georgia
supra
subsequent
orders
see
invalidated
death
sentences
existing
various
although
five
justices
concurring
per
curiam
opinion
authored
separate
opinion
since
accepted
holding
furman
minimum
death
penalty
imposed
sentencing
procedures
creat
substantial
risk
inflicted
arbitrary
capricious
manner
gregg
georgia
supra
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
touchstone
justice
stewart
concerns
furman
death
sentences
cruel
unusual
way
struck
lightning
cruel
unusual
people
convicted
rapes
murders
many
reprehensible
petitioners
among
capriciously
selected
random
handful
upon
sentence
death
fact
imposed
concurring
brothers
demonstrated
basis
discerned
selection
sentenced
die
constitutionally
impermissible
basis
race
simply
conclude
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
tolerate
infliction
sentence
death
legal
systems
permit
unique
penalty
wantonly
freakishly
imposed
footnotes
citations
omitted
concerns
irrational
imposition
death
penalty
based
abstract
speculation
rather
premised
actual
experience
administration
penalty
various
attempt
time
summarize
evidence
available
furman
decided
see
douglas
concurring
brennan
concurring
stewart
concurring
marshall
concurring
suffice
say
persuaded
personal
experience
reviewing
capital
cases
available
research
analyzing
imposition
extreme
penalty
death
penalty
administered
arbitrary
capricious
manner
moreover
stated
concern
irrational
imposition
death
penalty
cease
judgments
furman
indeed
focus
reflected
decisions
ever
since
see
barclay
florida
stevens
concurring
judgment
zant
stephens
characterizing
furman
holding
discretion
afforded
sentencing
body
matter
grave
determination
whether
human
life
taken
spared
discretion
must
suitably
directed
limited
minimize
risk
wholly
arbitrary
capricious
action
quoting
gregg
georgia
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
jj
eddings
oklahoma
noting
attempted
provide
standards
constitutional
death
penalty
serve
goals
measured
consistent
application
fairness
accused
noting
insiste
capital
punishment
imposed
fairly
reasonable
consistency
hence
principle
accepted
part
death
penalty
decisions
past
years
irrational
application
death
penalty
evidenced
examination
death
penalty
actually
imposed
constitutionally
defended
even
repeating
principle
however
since
gregg
georgia
supra
companion
cases
allowed
executions
take
place
death
rows
expand
without
fully
examining
results
obtained
death
penalty
statutes
enacted
response
furman
decision
indeed
seems
content
conclude
long
certain
procedural
protections
exist
imposition
death
penalty
constitutionally
permissible
sentencer
consideration
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
see
ante
combined
form
meaningful
appellate
review
see
ante
stevens
concurring
part
ensure
death
sentence
particular
case
death
penalty
general
constitutional
exercise
state
power
given
emotions
generated
capital
crimes
may
well
juries
trial
judges
appellate
courts
considering
sentences
death
invariably
affected
impermissible
considerations
although
may
tolerate
irrationality
sentencing
contexts
premise
furman
arbitrary
capricious
decisionmaking
simply
invalid
applied
matter
grave
determination
whether
human
life
taken
spared
zant
stephens
supra
executions
occur
frequency
therefore
time
fast
approaching
reexamine
death
penalty
simply
ensure
existence
adequate
procedural
protections
importantly
reevaluate
imposition
death
penalty
irrationality
prohibited
decision
furman
current
evidence
discriminatory
irrational
application
death
penalty
yet
completely
systematically
marshaled
evidence
compiled
moreover
properly
presented
issue
case
nevertheless
recent
decisions
today
evaluates
procedural
mechanism
issue
case
comparative
proportionality
review
without
regard
whether
actual
administration
death
penalty
satisfies
concerns
expressed
furman
compelling
evidence
death
penalty
continues
administered
unconstitutionally
relates
racial
discrimination
apparently
perhaps
invariably
exists
application
correctly
avoids
question
racial
discrimination
properly
presented
case
see
ante
noting
appeals
remanded
possible
evidentiary
hearing
harris
claim
death
penalty
discriminatorily
administered
california
issue
avoided
much
longer
decisions
lower
federal
courts
beginning
recognize
see
spencer
zant
rehearing
en
banc
pending
ross
hopper
see
also
stephens
kemp
stay
execution
granted
pending
rehearing
en
banc
spencer
furthermore
scholarly
research
necessary
support
claim
systemic
racial
discrimination
currently
pursued
results
research
compiled
rapidly
expanding
body
literature
see
baldus
woodworth
pulaski
differential
treatment
white
black
victim
homicide
cases
georgia
capital
charging
sentencing
process
preliminary
findings
june
unpublished
reprinted
app
pet
cert
smith
balkcom
exh
appendix
discrimination
race
victim
bowers
pierce
arbitrariness
discrimination
capital
statutes
crime
delinquency
discrimination
race
defendant
race
victim
foley
florida
furman
decision
discrimination
processing
capital
offense
cases
unpublished
reprinted
app
application
stay
sullivan
wainwright
exh
discrimination
race
victim
foley
powell
discretion
prosecutors
judges
juries
capital
cases
crim
rev
fall
discrimination
race
victim
gross
mauro
patterns
death
analysis
racial
disparities
capital
sentencing
homicide
victimization
unpublished
reprinted
app
application
stay
sullivan
wainwright
supra
exh
discrimination
race
victim
jacoby
paternoster
sentencing
disparity
jury
packing
challenges
death
penalty
crim
criminology
discrimination
race
victim
kleck
racial
discrimination
criminal
sentencing
critical
evaluation
evidence
additional
evidence
death
penalty
soc
rev
radelet
racial
characteristics
imposition
death
penalty
soc
rev
discrimination
race
victim
radelet
pierce
race
prosecutorial
discretion
homicide
cases
presented
meetings
american
sociological
association
detroit
reprinted
app
application
stay
sullivan
wainwright
supra
exh
discrimination
race
defendant
race
victim
riedel
discrimination
imposition
death
penalty
comparison
characteristics
offenders
sentenced
temp
zeisel
race
bias
administration
death
penalty
florida
experience
harv
rev
discrimination
race
defendant
race
victim
see
also
black
capital
punishment
inevitability
caprice
mistake
ed
although
research
methods
techniques
often
differ
conclusions
reached
relatively
clear
factors
crucial
yet
without
doubt
impermissibly
applied
imposition
death
penalty
race
defendant
race
victim
mean
suggest
racial
discrimination
irrationality
infects
death
penalty
currently
applied
several
studies
cited
suggest
discrimination
gender
foley
supra
foley
powell
supra
socioeconomic
status
foley
powell
supra
geographical
location
within
state
bowers
pierce
supra
foley
powell
supra
may
common
attempt
time
expand
upon
conclusions
studies
may
dictate
going
fulfill
constitutional
responsibilities
sanction
continued
executions
unexamined
assumption
death
penalty
administered
rational
nonarbitrary
noncapricious
manner
simply
assume
procedural
protections
mandated
prior
decisions
eliminate
irrationality
underlying
application
death
penalty
ignore
holding
furman
whatever
constitutional
difficulties
may
inherent
state
death
penalty
system
ii
question
directly
presented
case
whether
federal
constitution
requires
statewide
jurisdiction
undertake
comparative
proportionality
review
death
sentence
may
carried
results
obtained
many
undertake
proportionality
review
pursuant
either
state
statute
judicial
decision
convince
form
appellate
review
serves
eliminate
small
part
irrationality
infects
current
imposition
death
sentences
throughout
various
extent
believe
comparative
proportionality
review
mandated
constitution
forms
irrationality
infect
administration
death
penalty
unlike
discrimination
race
gender
socioeconomic
status
geographic
location
within
state
measured
comprehensive
way
mean
however
process
death
sentences
currently
imposed
otherwise
rational
acceptable
rather
individual
defendant
process
filled
much
unpredictability
smacks
little
lottery
system
furman
georgia
brennan
concurring
chosen
death
sentence
remains
random
struck
lightning
stewart
concurring
chief
among
reasons
unpredictability
fact
similarly
situated
defendants
charged
convicted
similar
crimes
within
state
often
receive
vastly
different
sentences
professor
john
kaplan
stanford
law
school
summarized
dilemma
problem
error
imposing
capital
punishment
much
serious
consider
chances
error
system
execution
someone
completely
innocent
ultimate
horror
case
though
examples
victims
mistaken
identity
sometimes
found
death
row
far
common
cases
fall
two
types
one
recipient
death
penalty
guilty
crime
lesser
offense
capital
punishment
theory
available
second
type
error
capital
punishment
occurs
execute
someone
whose
crime
seem
aggravated
compared
many
escaped
death
penalty
kind
case
extremely
common
must
worry
whether
first
designed
procedures
appropriate
decision
life
death
second
whether
followed
procedures
kaplan
problem
capital
punishment
rev
disproportionality
among
sentences
given
different
defendants
eliminated
sentencing
disparities
identified
logical
way
identify
sentencing
disparities
statewide
jurisdiction
conduct
comparisons
death
sentences
imposed
different
judges
juries
within
state
labels
comparative
proportionality
review
see
ante
although
clearly
panacea
review
often
serves
identify
extreme
examples
disproportionality
among
similarly
situated
defendants
least
extent
form
appellate
review
serves
eliminate
irrationality
currently
surrounds
imposition
death
sentence
limited
purpose
therefore
believe
constitution
prohibition
irrational
imposition
death
penalty
requires
procedural
safeguard
provided
indeed
despite
insistence
review
compelled
federal
constitution
require
either
statute
judicial
decision
form
comparative
proportionality
review
death
sentence
may
carried
weigh
heavily
side
requiring
appellate
review
cf
enmund
florida
coker
georgia
addition
current
practices
establish
beyond
dispute
review
administered
without
much
difficulty
statewide
jurisdiction
state
perhaps
best
evidence
value
proportionality
review
gathered
examining
actual
results
obtained
require
review
example
since
statute
controlling
appellate
review
death
sentences
state
georgia
required
georgia
determine
hether
sentence
death
excessive
disproportionate
penalty
imposed
similar
cases
considering
crime
defendant
code
ann
see
ante
gregg
georgia
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
pursuant
statutory
mandate
georgia
vacated
least
seven
death
sentences
convinced
comparatively
disproportionate
see
high
state
death
sentence
disproportionate
armed
robbery
kidnaping
hall
state
death
sentence
disproportionate
felony
murder
codefendant
received
life
sentence
subsequent
jury
trial
ward
state
death
sentence
disproportionate
murder
defendant
received
life
sentence
crime
previous
trial
jarrell
state
death
sentence
disproportionate
armed
robbery
floyd
state
gregg
state
aff
grounds
coley
state
death
sentence
disproportionate
rape
cf
hill
state
death
sentence
disproportionate
even
though
unclear
defendant
actually
committed
murder
sentence
later
commuted
life
imprisonment
board
pardons
paroles
similarly
require
comparative
proportionality
review
also
vacated
death
sentences
defendants
whose
crime
personal
history
justify
extreme
penalty
see
henry
state
ark
sumlin
state
ark
blair
state
mccaskill
state
people
gleckler
smith
commonwealth
state
sonnier
la
coleman
state
miss
state
mcilvoy
mo
munn
state
crim
app
cases
clearly
demonstrate
view
comparative
proportionality
review
serves
eliminate
small
part
irrationality
currently
infects
imposition
death
penalty
various
execution
carried
therefore
state
required
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
conduct
appellate
review
decision
furman
continuing
emphasis
meaningful
appellate
review
see
ante
stevens
concurring
part
barclay
florida
marshall
dissenting
require
less
iii
today
concludes
prior
decisions
mandate
comparative
proportionality
review
conducted
execution
takes
place
simply
california
statute
provides
list
special
circumstances
factors
jury
must
find
imposing
death
sentence
judicial
review
findings
upholds
california
sentencing
scheme
point
determine
whether
comparative
proportionality
review
required
order
ensure
irrational
arbitrary
capricious
imposition
death
penalty
invalidated
furman
still
exist
even
adhere
view
death
penalty
circumstances
cruel
unusual
punishment
join
unstudied
decisionmaking
dissent
concurring
opinion
expressed
view
death
penalty
circumstances
cruel
unusual
punishment
prohibited
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
furman
georgia
see
also
gregg
georgia
brennan
dissenting
nothing
occurred
past
years
given
reason
change
views
anything
today
persuaded
unconstitutionality
death
penalty
ever
therefore
adhere
views
expressed
furman
gregg
vacate
death
sentence
imposed
respondent
robert
alton
harris
even
dissenters
viewed
concerns
expressed
arbitrary
capricious
infliction
death
penalty
primary
basis
decision
decisive
grievance
opinions
present
system
discretionary
sentencing
capital
cases
failed
produce
evenhanded
justice
selection
process
followed
rational
pattern
burger
dissenting
concurring
opinion
justice
white
focused
personal
experience
need
restate
facts
figures
appear
opinions
brethren
prove
conclusion
data
like
brethren
must
arrive
judgment
state
conclusion
based
years
almost
daily
exposure
facts
circumstances
hundreds
hundreds
federal
state
criminal
cases
involving
crimes
death
authorized
penalty
appeals
held
portion
opinion
challenged
district
becomes
necessary
provide
opportunity
develop
factual
basis
arguments
concerning
harris
claims
harris
therefore
entitled
remand
develop
evidence
arguments
essential
adequate
review
claims
time
harris
made
showing
support
wealth
age
discrimination
claims
appeals
therefore
refused
require
evidentiary
hearing
consideration
alleged
bases
discrimination
perhaps
easiest
evidence
assemble
order
highlight
comparative
disproportionality
death
sentences
examine
cases
proved
men
executed
since
individuals
least
four
refused
process
appeals
behalf
preferring
execution
life
prison
among
seven
others
individuals
convicted
heinous
crimes
even
among
men
still
unexplained
differences
crimes
went
unaccounted
sentences
example
professor
kaplan
focused
comments
execution
john
spinkellink
spelling
name
varies
read
record
probably
guilty
voluntary
manslaughter
murder
drifter
killed
another
drifter
sexually
assaulted
although
received
capital
punishment
florida
california
district
attorneys
probably
happy
accept
plea
murder
case
kaplan
see
spinkellink
wainwright
spinkellink
state
justice
ervin
florida
writing
dissent
explained
underlying
facts
support
professor
kaplan
conclusions
case
appears
spinkellink
time
homicide
drifter
picked
szymankiewicz
hitchhiker
criminal
records
heavy
drinkers
szymankiewicz
victim
case
man
vicious
propensities
boasted
killings
forced
spinkellink
homosexual
relations
spinkellink
discovered
szymankiewicz
relieved
cash
reserves
conditions
spinkellink
returned
motel
room
homicide
occurred
spinkellink
testified
shot
szymankiewicz
self
defense
evidence
contrary
circumstantial
fact
evidence
possible
infer
crime
premeditated
different
spinkellink
direct
testimony
shot
szymankiewicz
self
defense
reasoning
suddenness
premeditation
may
formed
suspect
allowed
prosecution
undue
latitude
readily
shift
theory
felony
murder
premeditated
murder
appear
situation
sufficient
certainty
premeditated
guilt
heinousness
warrant
death
penalty
nature
relation
spinkellink
szymankiewicz
taken
account
along
viciousness
victim
character
theft
spinkellink
money
obvious
hostility
existed
produced
mortal
encounter
involved
shooting
truly
characterized
sentencing
death
example
exercise
local
arbitrary
discretion
two
actors
homicide
underprivileged
drifters
surnames
spinkellink
szymankiewicz
foreign
strange
tallahassee
area
family
roots
business
connections
ingredients
present
exercise
invidious
parochial
discrimination
sentencing
process
plural
opinions
majority
furman
condemned
result
old
story
often
repeated
jurisdiction
subconscious
prejudices
local
mores
outweigh
humane
civilized
understanding
certain
segments
population
sentencing
murder
others
characterize
december
execution
charles
brooks
inexcusably
aberrational
particular
alleged
prosecution
brooks
case
failed
prove
whether
accomplice
one
woodrow
loudres
eventually
obtained
sentence
plea
bargain
fired
fatal
shot
indeed
brooks
executed
prosecutor
joined
seeking
stay
execution
see
goodpaster
judicial
review
death
sentences
crim
criminology
los
angeles
times
los
angeles
daily
journal
see
also
brooks
estelle
brennan
marshall
stevens
dissenting
denial
stay
brooks
estelle
per
curiam
complete
list
state
statutes
decisions
see
app
brief
respondent
see
also
baldus
pulaski
woodworth
kyle
identifying
comparatively
excessive
sentences
death
quantitative
approach
stan
rev
goodpaster
supra
although
today
holds
constitutionally
compelled
conduct
comparative
proportionality
reviews
state
course
remains
free
continue
practice
ironically
although
california
death
penalty
statute
reviewed
case
require
comparative
proportionality
review
felony
sentences
state
subject
mandatory
highly
complex
system
comparative
review
see
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
within
one
year
commencement
term
imprisonment
board
prison
terms
shall
review
sentence
determine
whether
sentence
disparate
comparison
sentences
imposed
similar
cases
california
therefore
accords
greater
protection
felons
imprisoned
felons
may
executed