penry
johnson
director
texas
department
criminal
justice
institutional
division
argued
march
decided
june
held
petitioner
penry
sentenced
death
violation
eighth
amendment
close
penalty
hearing
penry
first
texas
capital
murder
trial
jury
instructed
answer
three
statutorily
mandated
special
issues
whether
penry
conduct
committed
deliberately
reasonable
expectation
death
result
whether
probable
continuing
threat
society
whether
killing
unreasonable
response
provocation
deceased
although
penry
offered
extensive
evidence
mentally
retarded
severely
abused
child
jury
never
told
consider
give
mitigating
effect
evidence
imposing
sentence
holding
jury
adequately
instructed
respect
mitigating
evidence
found
among
things
none
special
issues
broad
enough
allow
jury
consider
give
effect
evidence
penry
lynaugh
penry
texas
retried
penry
found
guilty
capital
murder
penalty
phase
defense
put
extensive
evidence
regarding
penry
mental
impairments
childhood
abuse
direct
examination
defense
clinical
neuropsychologist
price
testified
believed
penry
suffered
organic
brain
impairment
mental
retardation
price
cited
one
records
reviewed
preparing
testimony
psychiatric
evaluation
prepared
peebles
request
penry
determine
penry
competency
stand
trial
earlier
charge
unrelated
murder
issue
defense
objection
price
recited
portion
evaluation
stated
peebles
professional
opinion
penry
released
dangerous
others
came
time
submit
case
jury
trial
instructed
jury
determine
penry
sentence
answering
three
special
issues
issue
penry
trial
gave
supplemental
instruction
hen
deliberate
special
issues
consider
mitigating
circumstances
supported
evidence
find
circumstances
must
decide
much
weight
deserve
therefore
give
effect
consideration
assessing
defendant
personal
culpability
time
answer
special
issue
determine
giving
effect
mitigating
evidence
life
sentence
reflected
negative
finding
issue
consideration
rather
death
sentence
appropriate
response
penry
personal
culpability
negative
finding
given
one
special
issues
verdict
form
however
contained
text
three
special
issues
gave
jury
two
choices
respect
yes
jury
unanimously
answered
yes
special
issue
sentenced
penry
death
accordance
state
law
affirming
texas
criminal
appeals
rejected
penry
claims
admission
language
peebles
report
violated
penry
fifth
amendment
privilege
jury
instructions
constitutionally
inadequate
permit
jury
consider
give
effect
particular
mitigating
evidence
respect
latter
held
supplemental
instruction
met
penry
constitutional
requirements
petition
state
habeas
corpus
relief
denied
penry
petitioned
federal
habeas
relief
district
found
state
appellate
conclusions
penry
claims
neither
contrary
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
fifth
circuit
denied
certificate
appealability
held
penry
argument
unavailing
admission
evidence
portion
peebles
report
referring
future
dangerousness
violated
fifth
amendment
privilege
case
distinguishable
estelle
smith
held
admission
psychiatrist
testimony
topic
future
dangerousness
based
defendant
uncounseled
statements
violated
fifth
amendment
need
decide
whether
several
respects
case
differs
estelle
affect
merits
penry
claim
rather
question
whether
texas
decision
contrary
unreasonable
application
precedent
see
williams
taylor
differences
case
estelle
substantial
estelle
opinion
suggested
holding
limited
distinct
circumstances
presented
therefore
said
objectively
unreasonable
texas
conclude
penry
entitled
relief
fifth
amendment
claim
see
williams
supra
even
precedent
establish
squarely
use
peebles
report
violated
fifth
amendment
error
justify
overturning
penry
sentence
establish
error
substantial
injurious
effect
influence
determining
jury
verdict
brecht
abrahamson
considerable
doubt
penry
make
showing
excerpt
peebles
report
neither
first
last
expert
opinion
jury
heard
effect
penry
posed
future
danger
means
key
state
case
future
dangerousness
pp
jury
instructions
penry
resentencing
however
comply
mandate
penry
extent
texas
appellate
believed
penry
satisfied
merely
supplemental
instruction
given
clearly
misapprehended
prior
decision
key
penry
jury
able
consider
give
effect
defendant
mitigating
evidence
imposing
sentence
pp
affirmed
part
reversed
part
remanded
delivered
opinion
parts
ii
unanimous
part
joined
stevens
kennedy
souter
ginsburg
breyer
jj
thomas
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
rehnquist
scalia
joined
johnny
paul
penry
petitioner
gary
johnson
director
texas
department
criminal
justice
institutional
division
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
june
justice
delivered
opinion
held
johnny
paul
penry
sentenced
death
violation
eighth
amendment
jury
adequately
instructed
respect
mitigating
evidence
see
penry
lynaugh
penry
state
texas
retried
penry
jury
also
found
guilty
capital
murder
sentenced
death
consider
whether
jury
instructions
penry
resentencing
complied
mandate
penry
also
consider
whether
admission
evidence
statements
psychiatric
report
based
uncounseled
interview
penry
ran
afoul
fifth
amendment
johnny
paul
penry
brutally
raped
murdered
pamela
carpenter
october
texas
jury
found
guilty
capital
murder
close
penalty
hearing
jury
instructed
answer
three
statutorily
mandated
special
issues
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
quoting
tex
code
crim
proc
art
vernon
supp
jury
answered
yes
issue
required
statute
trial
sentenced
penry
death
although
penry
offered
extensive
evidence
mentally
retarded
severely
abused
child
jury
never
instructed
consider
give
mitigating
effect
evidence
imposing
sentence
three
special
issues
broad
enough
scope
jury
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
answering
special
issue
penry
mental
retardation
potentially
relevant
first
special
issue
whether
acted
deliberately
found
way
sure
jurors
fully
considered
mitigating
evidence
bore
broader
question
penry
moral
culpability
second
issue
whether
penry
future
danger
evidence
mental
retardation
history
abuse
relevant
aggravating
factor
emphasis
original
evidence
simply
relevant
mitigating
way
third
issue
whether
penry
unreasonably
responded
provocation
comments
counsel
also
failed
clarify
jury
role
defense
counsel
urged
jurors
vote
one
special
issues
believed
penry
mitigating
evidence
deserve
put
death
prosecutor
however
reminded
oath
follow
law
answe
questions
based
evidence
following
law
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
light
prosecutor
argument
absence
instructions
informing
jury
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
penry
mental
retardation
abused
background
declining
impose
death
penalty
concluded
reasonable
juror
well
believed
vehicle
expressing
view
penry
deserve
sentenced
death
based
upon
mitigating
evidence
thus
vacated
penry
sentence
confirming
capital
case
sentencer
must
able
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
imposing
sentence
sentence
imposed
reflec
ts
reasoned
moral
response
defendant
background
character
crime
quoting
california
brown
concurring
emphasis
original
penry
retried
found
guilty
capital
murder
penalty
phase
defense
put
extensive
evidence
regarding
penry
mental
impairments
childhood
abuse
one
defense
witness
subject
penry
mental
impairments
randall
price
clinical
neuropsychologist
direct
examination
price
testified
believed
penry
suffered
organic
brain
impairment
mental
retardation
app
course
price
prosecutor
asked
records
price
reviewed
preparing
testimony
price
cited
reports
including
psychiatric
evaluation
penry
prepared
felix
peebles
may
peebles
report
prepared
request
penry
determine
penry
competency
stand
trial
rape
charge
unrelated
rape
murder
pamela
carpenter
prosecutor
asked
price
read
specific
portion
peebles
report
jury
objection
defense
counsel
price
recited
peebles
professional
opinion
johnny
paul
penry
released
custody
dangerous
persons
prosecutor
recited
portion
peebles
report
closing
argument
came
time
submit
case
jury
instructed
jury
determine
penry
sentence
answering
three
special
issues
three
issues
put
jury
penry
specifically
jury
determine
whether
penry
acted
deliberately
killed
pamela
carpenter
whether
probability
penry
dangerous
future
whether
penry
acted
unreasonably
response
provocation
app
cf
penry
told
jury
determine
answers
issues
efore
issue
may
answered
yes
jurors
must
convinced
evidence
beyond
reasonable
doubt
answer
issue
yes
juror
considering
evidence
instructions
reasonable
doubt
whether
answer
special
issue
answered
yes
juror
vote
special
issue
app
explained
consequences
jury
decision
return
affirmative
finding
special
issues
submitted
shall
sentence
defendant
death
instructed
return
negative
finding
special
issue
submitted
shall
sentence
defendant
texas
department
corrections
life
therefore
instructed
answers
special
issues
determine
punishment
assessed
defendant
reflective
finding
personal
culpability
defendant
johnny
paul
penry
case
gave
following
supplemental
instruction
instructed
deliberate
questions
posed
special
issues
consider
mitigating
circumstances
supported
evidence
presented
phases
trial
whether
presented
state
defendant
mitigating
circumstance
may
include
limited
aspect
defendant
character
record
circumstances
crime
believe
make
death
sentence
inappropriate
case
find
mitigating
circumstances
case
must
decide
much
weight
deserve
therefore
give
effect
consideration
assessing
defendant
personal
culpability
time
answer
special
issue
determine
giving
effect
mitigating
evidence
life
sentence
reflected
negative
finding
issue
consideration
rather
death
sentence
appropriate
response
personal
culpability
defendant
negative
finding
given
one
special
issues
complete
copy
instructions
attached
verdict
form
jury
took
entire
packet
deliberation
room
tr
oral
arg
verdict
form
however
contained
text
three
special
issues
gave
jury
two
choices
respect
special
issue
jury
unanimously
find
determine
beyond
reasonable
doubt
answer
special
issue
yes
jury
least
ten
jurors
reasonable
doubt
matter
inquired
special
issue
find
determine
answer
special
issue
app
deliberating
approximately
hours
jury
returned
punishment
verdict
see
record
signed
verdict
form
confirmed
jury
unanimously
agreed
answer
special
issue
yes
app
accordance
state
law
sentenced
penry
death
texas
criminal
appeals
affirmed
penry
conviction
sentence
rejected
penry
claim
admission
language
peebles
report
violated
penry
fifth
amendment
privilege
reasoned
peebles
examined
penry
two
years
prior
murder
pamela
carpenter
penry
time
confronted
someone
essentially
agent
state
whose
function
gather
evidence
might
used
connection
crime
incarcerated
penry
state
internal
quotation
marks
citation
omitted
also
rejected
penry
claim
jury
instructions
given
second
sentencing
hearing
constitutionally
inadequate
permit
jury
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
mental
retardation
childhood
abuse
cited
penry
proposition
defendant
proffers
mitigating
evidence
relevant
special
issues
relevance
defendant
moral
culpability
beyond
scope
special
issues
jury
must
given
special
instruction
order
allow
consider
give
effect
evidence
quoting
supplemental
jury
instruction
given
penry
second
trial
see
supra
overruled
penry
claim
error
stated
nullification
instruction
one
sufficient
meet
constitutional
requirements
penry
petition
state
habeas
corpus
relief
denied
see
app
trial
order
criminal
appeals
order
penry
filed
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
pursuant
ed
supp
district
southern
district
texas
district
rejected
penry
claims
finding
texas
criminal
appeals
conclusions
points
neither
contrary
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
app
full
briefing
argument
appeals
fifth
circuit
denied
certificate
appealability
stayed
penry
execution
granted
certiorari
consider
penry
constitutional
arguments
regarding
admission
peebles
report
adequacy
jury
instructions
ii
penry
filed
federal
habeas
petition
enactment
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
provisions
law
govern
scope
review
specifically
supp
prohibits
federal
granting
application
writ
habeas
corpus
respect
claim
adjudicated
merits
state
unless
adjudication
resulted
decision
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
last
term
williams
taylor
explained
contrary
unreasonable
application
clauses
independent
meaning
state
decision
contrary
clearly
established
precedent
state
either
applies
rule
contradicts
governing
law
set
forth
cases
confronts
set
facts
materially
indistinguishable
decision
nevertheless
arrives
result
different
precedent
state
decision
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
precedent
correctly
identifies
governing
legal
rule
applies
unreasonably
facts
particular
prisoner
case
federal
habeas
making
unreasonable
application
inquiry
ask
whether
state
application
clearly
established
federal
law
objectively
unreasonable
distinguishing
unreasonable
incorrect
application
federal
law
clarified
even
federal
habeas
concludes
state
decision
applied
clearly
established
federal
law
incorrectly
relief
appropriate
application
also
objectively
unreasonable
although
district
evaluated
texas
criminal
appeals
disposition
penry
claims
standard
later
rejected
williams
see
app
stating
application
law
facts
unreasonable
said
reasonable
jurists
considering
question
one
view
state
ruling
citation
omitted
fifth
circuit
articulated
proper
standard
review
set
forth
clarified
williams
denied
penry
relief
guided
standard
turn
substance
penry
claims
iii
penry
contends
admission
evidence
portion
peebles
report
referred
penry
future
dangerousness
violated
fifth
amendment
privilege
never
warned
statements
made
peebles
might
later
used
texas
criminal
appeals
disagreed
concluding
peebles
interviewed
penry
peebles
acting
agent
state
order
gather
evidence
might
used
penry
penry
argues
case
indistinguishable
estelle
smith
estelle
considered
situation
psychiatrist
conducted
ostensibly
neutral
competency
examination
capital
defendant
drew
conclusions
defendant
uncounseled
statements
regarding
future
dangerousness
later
testified
prosecution
crucial
issue
likened
psychiatrist
agent
state
recounting
unwarned
statements
made
postarrest
custodial
setting
held
criminal
defendant
neither
initiates
psychiatric
evaluation
attempts
introduce
psychiatric
evidence
may
compelled
respond
psychiatrist
statements
used
capital
sentencing
proceeding
admission
psychiatrist
testimony
distinct
circumstances
violated
fifth
amendment
case
differs
estelle
several
respects
first
defendant
estelle
placed
mental
condition
issue
whereas
penry
made
mental
status
central
issue
rape
case
trials
pamela
carpenter
rape
murder
second
estelle
trial
called
competency
evaluation
state
chosen
examining
psychiatrist
however
penry
counsel
case
requested
psychiatric
exam
performed
peebles
third
estelle
state
called
psychiatrist
testify
part
affirmative
case
penry
psychological
witness
prosecutor
elicited
quotation
peebles
report
fourth
estelle
defendant
charged
capital
crime
time
competency
exam
thus
clear
future
dangerousness
specific
issue
sentencing
penry
however
yet
murdered
pamela
carpenter
time
interview
peebles
need
decide
whether
differences
affect
merits
penry
fifth
amendment
claim
rather
question
whether
texas
decision
contrary
unreasonable
application
precedent
supp
think
differences
case
estelle
substantial
opinion
estelle
suggested
holding
limited
distinct
circumstances
presented
also
indicated
fifth
amendment
analysis
might
different
defendant
intends
introduce
psychiatric
evidence
penalty
phase
estelle
apply
violate
fifth
amendment
prosecutor
uses
portions
psychiatric
evaluation
requested
defendant
rebut
psychiatric
evidence
presented
defendant
trial
therefore
say
objectively
unreasonable
texas
conclude
penry
entitled
relief
fifth
amendment
claim
even
precedent
establish
squarely
prosecution
use
peebles
report
violated
penry
fifth
amendment
privilege
error
justify
overturning
penry
sentence
penry
establish
error
substantial
injurious
effect
influence
determining
jury
verdict
brecht
abrahamson
quoting
kotteakos
think
unlikely
penry
make
showing
excerpt
peebles
report
bolstered
state
argument
penry
posed
future
danger
neither
first
last
opinion
jury
heard
point
four
prison
officials
testified
opinion
penry
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
app
record
three
psychiatrists
testified
penry
dangerous
individual
likely
remain
two
state
witnesses
see
app
third
price
defense
witness
prosecutor
asked
read
peebles
report
recitation
price
stated
opinion
penry
free
world
consider
dangerous
peebles
report
effective
rhetorical
tool
means
key
state
case
question
whether
penry
likely
commit
future
acts
violence
therefore
considerable
doubt
admission
peebles
report
even
erroneous
substantial
injurious
effect
verdict
brecht
abrahamson
supra
accordingly
disturb
texas
criminal
appeals
rejection
penry
fifth
amendment
claim
penry
also
contends
jury
instructions
given
second
sentencing
hearing
comport
holding
penry
provide
jury
vehicle
expressing
reasoned
moral
response
mitigating
evidence
penry
mental
retardation
childhood
abuse
texas
criminal
appeals
disagreed
summarized
penry
holding
defendant
proffers
mitigating
evidence
relevant
special
issues
relevance
defendant
moral
culpability
beyond
scope
special
issues
jury
must
given
special
instruction
order
allow
consider
give
effect
evidence
stated
supplemental
jury
instruction
given
penry
second
sentencing
hearing
satisfied
mandate
ibid
texas
make
rationale
holding
entirely
clear
one
hand
might
believed
penry
satisfied
merely
virtue
fact
supplemental
instruction
given
hand
might
believed
substance
instruction
satisfied
penry
latter
seems
likely
extent
former
texas
clearly
misapprehended
prior
decision
penry
hold
mere
mention
mitigating
circumstances
capital
sentencing
jury
satisfies
eighth
amendment
stand
proposition
constitutionally
sufficient
inform
jury
may
consider
mitigating
circumstances
deciding
appropriate
sentence
rather
key
penry
jury
able
consider
give
effect
defendant
mitigating
evidence
imposing
sentence
dissenting
sentencer
must
allowed
give
full
consideration
full
effect
mitigating
circumstances
emphasis
original
jury
given
vehicle
expressing
reasoned
moral
response
evidence
rendering
sentencing
decision
penry
state
contends
substance
supplemental
instruction
satisfied
penry
provided
jury
requisite
vehicle
expressing
reasoned
moral
response
penry
particular
mitigating
evidence
specifically
state
points
admittedly
less
artful
portion
supplemental
instruction
says
find
mitigating
circumstances
case
must
decide
much
weight
deserve
therefore
give
effect
consideration
assessing
defendant
personal
culpability
time
answer
special
issue
determine
giving
effect
mitigating
evidence
life
sentence
reflected
negative
finding
issue
consideration
rather
death
sentence
appropriate
response
personal
culpability
defendant
negative
finding
given
one
special
issues
app
emphasis
added
see
also
brief
respondent
see
two
possible
ways
interpret
confusing
instruction
first
portions
italicized
indicate
understood
telling
jurors
take
penry
mitigating
evidence
account
determining
truthful
answers
special
issue
viewed
light
however
supplemental
instruction
placed
jury
better
position
jury
penry
made
clear
penry
none
special
issues
broad
enough
provide
vehicle
jury
give
mitigating
effect
evidence
penry
mental
retardation
childhood
abuse
cf
words
judge
dennis
jury
ability
consider
give
effect
penry
mitigating
evidence
still
shackled
confined
within
scope
three
special
issues
dissenting
opinion
thus
supplemental
instruction
practical
effect
jury
instructions
penry
second
sentencing
meaningfully
different
ones
found
constitutionally
inadequate
penry
alternatively
state
urges
possible
understand
supplemental
instruction
informing
jury
simply
answer
one
special
issues
believed
mitigating
circumstances
made
life
sentence
appropriate
regardless
initial
answers
questions
brief
respondent
texas
criminal
appeals
appeared
understand
instruction
sense
termed
supplemental
instruction
nullification
instruction
even
assuming
jurors
understood
instruction
operate
way
instruction
simple
implement
state
contends
rather
made
jury
charge
whole
internally
contradictory
placed
jurors
impossible
situation
jury
clearly
instructed
yes
answer
special
issue
appropriate
supported
evidence
beyond
reasonable
doubt
app
answer
appropriate
reasonable
doubt
whether
answer
special
issue
yes
verdict
form
listed
three
special
issues
mention
mitigating
circumstances
confirmed
clarified
jury
two
choices
respect
special
issue
jury
swear
unanimously
determined
beyond
reasonable
doubt
answer
special
issue
yes
swear
least
jurors
reasonable
doubt
matter
inquired
special
issue
jury
thus
determin
ed
answer
special
issue
ibid
emphasis
added
state
view
however
jury
also
told
ignore
clear
guidelines
even
fact
reasonable
doubt
matter
inquired
answer
special
issue
negative
mitigating
circumstances
warranted
life
sentence
words
jury
change
one
truthful
yes
answers
untruthful
answer
order
avoid
death
sentence
penry
generally
presume
jurors
follow
instructions
see
richardson
marsh
however
logically
ethically
impossible
juror
follow
sets
instructions
penry
mitigating
evidence
fit
within
scope
special
issues
answering
issues
manner
prescribed
verdict
form
necessarily
meant
ignoring
command
supplemental
instruction
answering
special
issues
mode
prescribed
supplemental
instruction
necessarily
meant
ignoring
verdict
form
instructions
indeed
jurors
wanted
answer
one
special
issues
falsely
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
violate
oath
render
true
verdict
tex
crim
proc
code
art
vernon
mechanism
created
supplemental
instruction
thus
inserted
element
capriciousness
sentencing
decision
making
jurors
power
avoid
death
penalty
dependent
willingness
elevate
supplemental
instruction
verdict
form
instructions
roberts
louisiana
plurality
opinion
least
reasonable
likelihood
jury
applied
challenged
instruction
way
prevent
ed
consideration
penry
mental
retardation
childhood
abuse
boyde
california
supplemental
instruction
therefore
provided
inadequate
vehicle
jury
make
reasoned
moral
response
penry
mitigating
evidence
even
though
texas
criminal
appeals
focused
solely
supplemental
instruction
affirming
penry
sentence
state
urges
us
evaluate
instruction
contextually
reference
comments
prosecutor
defense
counsel
well
comments
voir
dire
indeed
said
approach
jury
instructions
way
jury
commonsense
understanding
instructions
light
taken
place
trial
penry
illustrates
methodology
evaluated
likely
effect
jury
comments
defense
counsel
prosecutor
however
conclude
comments
insufficient
clarify
confusion
caused
instructions
voir
dire
process
approximately
prospective
jurors
interviewed
see
record
index
transcripts
many
veniremembers
including
jurors
eventually
empaneled
received
copy
instruction
largely
similar
supplemental
instruction
ultimately
given
jury
juror
read
instruction
judge
attempted
explain
worked
see
record
thought
mitigating
evidence
sufficient
might
even
though
really
felt
answers
three
special
issues
yes
might
answer
one
penry
get
life
sentence
rather
death
penalty
prosecutor
attempted
explain
instruction
see
ven
though
believe
three
answers
yes
think
death
penalty
appropriate
particular
person
happened
past
instruction
give
effect
belief
answer
one
issues
jurors
defense
counsel
also
gave
similar
explanation
see
believe
mitigating
circumstance
apply
mitigation
answer
going
back
changing
answer
yes
comments
reinforce
state
construction
supplemental
instruction
bolster
confidence
jurors
ability
give
effect
penry
mitigating
evidence
deciding
sentence
rather
highlight
arbitrary
way
supplemental
instruction
operated
fact
jury
essentially
instructed
return
false
answer
special
issue
order
avoid
death
sentence
moreover
skeptical
time
penalty
phase
deliberations
began
jurors
remembered
explanations
given
voir
dire
much
less
taken
binding
statement
law
voir
dire
began
almost
two
full
months
penalty
phase
deliberations
interim
jurors
observed
rest
voir
dire
listened
trial
extensive
instructions
participated
hours
deliberations
respect
penry
guilt
listened
another
trial
punishment
comments
counsel
voir
dire
surely
distant
convoluted
memory
time
jurors
began
deliberations
penry
sentence
state
also
contends
closing
arguments
penalty
phase
clarified
matters
penry
counsel
attempted
describe
jury
task
thought
mental
retardation
child
abuse
think
guy
deserves
life
sentence
death
sentence
get
answer
one
questions
judge
told
question
give
answer
even
decide
literally
correct
answer
yes
easiest
instruction
follow
law
funny
things
sometimes
app
however
explanation
reminded
jurors
answer
special
issues
dishonestly
order
give
effect
penry
mitigating
evidence
reasons
discussed
clarification
provided
real
help
moreover
even
thought
arguments
defense
counsel
adequate
substitute
statements
law
see
boyde
california
supra
prosecutor
effectively
neutralized
defense
counsel
argument
prosecutor
penry
stressing
jury
duty
follow
oath
evidence
law
app
best
jury
received
mixed
signals
opinion
penry
provided
sufficient
guidance
trial
might
drafted
jury
charge
penry
second
sentencing
hearing
comply
mandate
specifically
indicated
concerns
alleviated
jury
instruction
defining
term
deliberately
first
special
issue
way
clearly
direct
jury
consider
fully
penry
mitigating
evidence
bears
personal
culpability
trial
surely
drafted
instruction
effect
indeed
penry
offered
two
definitions
deliberately
trial
refused
give
see
tr
oral
arg
clearly
drafted
catchall
instruction
mitigating
evidence
also
might
complied
penry
texas
current
capital
sentencing
scheme
revised
penry
second
trial
sentencing
provides
helpful
frame
reference
texas
requires
jury
decide
hether
taking
consideration
evidence
including
circumstances
offense
defendant
character
background
personal
moral
culpability
defendant
sufficient
mitigating
circumstance
circumstances
warrant
sentence
life
imprisonment
rather
death
sentence
imposed
tex
code
crim
art
vernon
supp
penry
counsel
conceding
issue
admitted
tough
time
saying
penry
complied
new
texas
procedure
tr
oral
arg
least
brevity
clarity
instruction
highlight
confusing
nature
supplemental
instruction
actually
given
indicate
trial
adequate
alternatives
available
drafted
instructions
penry
trial
thus
extent
texas
criminal
appeals
concluded
substance
jury
instructions
given
penry
second
sentencing
hearing
satisfied
mandate
penry
determination
objectively
unreasonable
cf
shafer
south
carolina
slip
holding
direct
review
south
carolina
incorrectly
limited
holding
simmons
south
carolina
mischaracterized
state
new
capital
sentencing
scheme
works
three
special
issues
submitted
jury
identical
ones
found
constitutionally
inadequate
applied
penry
although
supplemental
instruction
made
mention
mitigating
evidence
mechanism
purported
create
jurors
give
effect
evidence
ineffective
illogical
comments
counsel
accomplished
little
way
clarification
realistic
assessment
manner
supplemental
instruction
operated
therefore
lead
conclusion
reached
penry
reasonable
juror
well
believed
vehicle
expressing
view
penry
deserve
sentenced
death
based
upon
mitigating
evidence
judgment
appeals
fifth
circuit
therefore
affirmed
part
reversed
part
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
johnny
paul
penry
petitioner
gary
johnson
director
texas
department
criminal
justice
institutional
division
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
june
justice
thomas
chief
justice
justice
scalia
join
concurring
parts
ii
dissenting
part
two
texas
juries
deliberated
reasoned
penry
brutal
rape
murder
pamela
carpenter
warrants
death
penalty
texas
law
two
opinions
overruled
decisions
ground
sentencing
courts
said
penry
alleged
mitigating
evidence
believe
recent
sentencing
gave
jurors
opportunity
consider
evidence
penry
presented
respectfully
dissent
habeas
reviewing
called
upon
propose
believe
ideal
instruction
jury
take
account
evidence
related
penry
childhood
mental
status
job
much
simpler
significantly
removed
writing
instruction
first
instance
must
decide
merely
whether
conclusion
texas
criminal
appeals
sentencing
supplemental
instruction
explaining
jury
give
effect
mitigating
value
found
penry
evidence
satisfied
requirements
penry
objectively
unreasonable
williams
taylor
see
also
supp
penry
first
sentencing
read
jury
texas
three
special
issues
capital
instruct
jury
consider
evidence
offered
penry
mitigating
evidence
give
mitigating
effect
evidence
imposing
sentence
prosecutor
also
offer
way
jury
give
mitigating
effect
evidence
instead
simply
reiterated
jury
answer
three
questions
follow
law
penry
concluded
light
prosecutor
argument
absence
appropriate
jury
instructions
reasonable
juror
well
believed
vehicle
expressing
view
penry
deserve
sentenced
death
based
upon
mitigating
evidence
penry
second
sentencing
read
jury
three
special
issues
contrast
first
sentencing
however
instructed
jury
length
consider
penry
proffered
evidence
mitigating
evidence
give
mitigating
effect
evidence
see
ante
texas
criminal
appeals
concluded
supplemental
instruction
allow
ed
jury
consider
give
effect
penry
proffered
mitigating
evidence
therefore
sufficient
meet
constitutional
requirements
penry
penry
state
view
decision
objectively
reasonable
also
compelled
precedents
common
sense
evaluating
instructions
engage
technical
parsing
language
instructions
instead
approach
instructions
way
jury
commonsense
understanding
instructions
light
taken
place
trial
johnson
texas
quoting
boyde
california
texas
instruction
read
common
sense
even
technical
parsing
tells
jurors
may
consider
evidence
penry
presented
mitigating
evidence
believe
mitigating
evidence
makes
death
sentence
inappropriate
answer
one
special
issues
given
straightforward
reading
instructions
objectively
reasonable
eminently
logical
conclude
reasonable
juror
believed
vehicle
expressing
view
penry
deserve
sentenced
death
based
upon
mitigating
evidence
true
penry
proffered
evidence
fit
neatly
three
special
issues
imposing
death
penalty
texas
sentencing
told
jury
uncertain
terms
precisely
follow
directive
penry
first
sentencing
instructed
jury
consider
evidence
mitigating
evidence
see
app
hen
deliberate
questions
posed
special
issues
consider
mitigating
circumstances
supported
evidence
presented
phases
trial
whether
presented
state
defendant
mitigating
circumstance
may
include
limited
aspect
defendant
character
record
circumstances
crime
believe
make
death
sentence
inappropriate
case
next
explained
jury
must
give
effect
evidence
ibid
find
mitigating
circumstances
case
must
decide
much
weight
deserve
therefore
give
effect
consideration
assessing
defendant
personal
culpability
time
answer
special
issue
finally
unambiguously
instructed
determine
giving
effect
mitigating
evidence
life
sentence
reflected
negative
finding
issue
consideration
rather
death
sentence
appropriate
response
personal
culpability
defendant
negative
finding
given
one
special
issues
ibid
emphasis
added
without
performing
legal
acrobatics
make
instruction
confusing
certainly
contortions
necessary
find
texas
appellate
decision
objectively
unreasonable
simply
share
confusion
juror
consider
mitigating
evidence
decide
whether
makes
death
sentence
inappropriate
respond
yes
depending
answer
curiously
concludes
supplemental
instruction
inserted
element
capriciousness
sentencing
decision
making
jurors
power
avoid
death
penalty
dependent
willingness
elevate
supplemental
instruction
verdict
form
instructions
ante
quoting
roberts
louisiana
plurality
opinion
reference
roberts
however
wholly
misplaced
roberts
involved
situation
jury
told
find
defendant
guilty
lesser
included
offense
unsupported
evidence
jury
want
sentenced
death
penry
case
suggestion
express
implied
made
jury
disregard
evidence
contrary
instructed
give
effect
penry
proffered
evidence
required
penry
tellingly
roberts
plurality
stated
full
element
capriciousness
making
jurors
power
avoid
death
penalty
dependent
willingness
accept
invitation
disregard
trial
judge
instructions
emphasis
added
penry
case
judge
instructions
included
explanation
answer
three
special
issues
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
finally
contrary
claim
jury
received
mixed
signals
ante
appears
texas
courts
received
mixed
signals
jurek
texas
upheld
texas
sentencing
statute
issue
attack
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
joint
opinion
jurek
concluded
statute
permits
jury
consider
whatever
evidence
mitigating
circumstances
defense
bring
guides
focuses
jury
objective
consideration
particularized
circumstances
individual
offense
individual
offender
impose
sentence
death
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
purporting
distinguish
rather
overrule
jurek
penry
determined
texas
statute
constitutionally
insufficient
permitting
jurors
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
see
also
scalia
dissenting
explaining
penry
contradicts
jurek
conclusions
according
instruction
informing
jury
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
necessary
today
decision
yet
decided
even
supplemental
instruction
constitutionally
sufficient
footnotes
another
recent
development
texas
passage
bill
banning
execution
mentally
retarded
persons
see
babineck
perry
measure
needs
analyzing
dallas
morning
news
may
opinion
goes
press
texas
governor
rick
perry
still
process
deciding
whether
sign
bill
ibid
footnotes
special
issues
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
penry
quoting
tex
code
crim
proc
art
vernon
supp
suggestion
texas
may
believed
supplemental
instruction
regardless
substance
satisfy
penry
requirement
see
ante
specious
texas
explained
jury
must
given
special
instruction
order
allow
consider
give
effect
evidence
quoted
full
text
supplemental
instruction
concluded
nullification
instruction
one
sufficient
meet
constitutional
requirements
penry
emphasis
added
quite
obvious
based
legal
conclusion
content
supplemental
instruction
still
bewildered
finds
unconstitutional
texas
limit
consideration
mitigating
evidence
factors
relevant
three
special
issues
see
graham
collins
thomas
concurring
need
address
broader
issue
uphold
penry
sentence
think
need
look
beyond
instructions
evaluating
texas
appellate
decision
even
doubt
whether
instruction
led
jurors
believe
vehicle
giving
mitigating
effect
penry
evidence
instruction
made
clear
light
ha
taken
place
trial
johnson
texas
judge
prosecutor
fully
explained
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
voir
dire
process
defense
counsel
made
instruction
clear
closing
thought
mental
retardation
child
abuse
think
guy
deserves
life
sentence
death
sentence
get
answer
one
questions
app
even
jurors
forgotten
told
voir
dire
see
ante
assumption
find
questionable
given
presumptions
jurors
ability
remember
follow
instructions
see
weeks
angelone
defense
counsel
explanation
closing
arguments
fresh
minds
despite
assertion
defense
counsel
told
jurors
answer
questions
dishonestly
ante
seems
jurors
reasonably
believed
honestly
answer
question
found
death
sentence
inappropriate
given
mitigating
evidence
follow
oath
evidence
law
quoting
prosecutor
statement
app
truthfully
concluding
evidence
penry
childhood
mental
status
warrant
death
penalty
writing
next
one
special
issues