brown
warden
sanders
argued
october
decided
january
convicting
respondent
sanders
inter
alia
murder
jury
found
four
special
circumstances
rendered
death
eligible
cal
penal
code
ann
penalty
phase
jury
instructed
consider
list
sentencing
factors
including
circumstances
crime
existence
special
circumstances
found
true
sentenced
death
state
invalidated
two
special
circumstances
direct
appeal
nonetheless
affirmed
conviction
sentence
federal
district
subsequently
denied
sanders
habeas
relief
rejecting
claim
jury
consideration
invalid
special
circumstances
rendered
death
sentence
unconstitutional
reversing
ninth
circuit
applied
rules
weighing
see
stringer
black
rather
see
zant
stephens
found
sanders
unconstitutionally
deprived
individualized
death
sentence
held
requirement
limit
class
murderers
death
penalty
may
applied
furman
georgia
per
curiam
usually
met
trier
fact
finds
least
one
statutory
eligibility
factor
either
guilt
penalty
phase
narrowing
requirement
satisfied
sentencer
must
determine
whether
eligible
defendant
receive
death
penalty
many
channel
function
specifying
aggravating
factors
sometimes
identical
eligibility
factors
weighed
mitigating
considerations
answering
question
confronted
happens
sentencer
imposes
death
penalty
finding
valid
eligibility
factor
scheme
another
eligibility
factor
later
held
invalid
set
forth
different
rules
weighing
weighing
state
sentencer
consider
aggravation
specified
eligibility
factors
sentencer
relied
eligibility
factor
later
invalidated
sentencer
erroneously
invited
count
invalid
factor
weighing
favor
death
thus
skewing
weighing
process
stringer
supra
automatic
skewing
necessarily
occur
state
however
permitted
sentencer
consider
aggravating
factors
different
addition
eligibility
factors
scheme
seems
needlessly
complex
incapable
providing
full
range
variations
henceforth
guided
following
rule
invalidated
sentencing
factor
whether
eligibility
factor
render
sentence
unconstitutional
reason
adding
improper
element
aggravation
scale
weighing
process
unless
one
sentencing
factors
enables
sentencer
give
aggravating
weight
facts
circumstances
pp
jury
consideration
invalid
special
circumstances
sanders
case
gave
rise
constitutional
violation
california
special
circumstances
listed
eligibility
factors
designed
satisfy
furman
narrowing
requirement
jury
finds
existence
one
circumstances
must
take
account
separate
list
sentencing
factors
including
circumstances
crime
factor
factor
effect
rendering
specified
factors
nonexclusive
thus
making
california
prior
terminology
state
setting
aside
dichotomy
applying
direct
analysis
set
two
four
special
circumstances
invalidated
remaining
two
sufficient
satisfy
furman
narrowing
requirement
alone
rendered
sanders
death
eligible
moreover
facts
circumstances
admissible
prove
invalid
eligibility
factors
also
properly
adduced
aggravating
facts
circumstances
circumstances
crime
sentencing
factor
even
direction
consider
existence
special
circumstances
found
true
placed
special
emphasis
upon
facts
circumstances
relevant
invalid
factors
impact
fairly
regarded
constitutional
defect
sentencing
process
zant
supra
pp
reversed
remanded
scalia
delivered
opinion
roberts
kennedy
thomas
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
souter
joined
breyer
filed
dissenting
opinion
ginsburg
joined
jill
brown
warden
petitioner
ronald
sanders
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
january
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
consider
circumstances
invalidated
sentencing
factor
render
death
sentence
unconstitutional
reason
adding
improper
element
aggravation
scale
jury
weighing
process
respondent
ronald
sanders
companion
invaded
home
dale
boender
bound
blindfolded
girlfriend
janice
allen
victims
struck
head
heavy
blunt
object
allen
died
blow
sanders
convicted
murder
attempt
murder
boender
robbery
burglary
attempted
robbery
sanders
jury
found
four
special
circumstances
california
law
independently
rendered
eligible
death
penalty
see
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
trial
moved
penalty
phase
jury
instructed
consider
list
sentencing
factors
relating
sanders
background
nature
crime
one
circumstances
crime
defendant
convicted
present
proceeding
existence
special
circumstances
found
true
west
jury
sentenced
sanders
death
direct
appeal
california
declared
invalid
two
four
special
circumstances
found
jury
nonetheless
affirmed
sanders
death
sentence
relying
decision
zant
stephens
said
upheld
death
penalty
judgment
despite
invalidation
one
several
aggravating
factors
people
sanders
cal
affirmed
conviction
sentence
respects
denied
certiorari
sanders
california
sanders
filed
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
pursuant
district
eastern
district
california
arguing
relevant
jury
consideration
invalid
special
circumstances
rendered
death
sentence
sanders
exhausted
various
state
remedies
district
denied
relief
appeals
ninth
circuit
reversed
sanders
woodford
concluded
california
erroneously
believed
apply
rule
zant
stephens
applicable
nonweighing
uphold
verdict
despite
invalidation
two
special
circumstances
upholding
special
circumstances
citations
omitted
finding
california
weighing
state
applying
rules
announced
see
stringer
black
ninth
circuit
concluded
california
courts
uphold
sanders
death
sentence
finding
jury
use
invalid
special
circumstances
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
independently
reweighing
sentencing
factors
since
continued
state
courts
done
neither
sanders
unconstitutionally
deprived
individualized
death
sentence
granted
certiorari
ii
since
furman
georgia
per
curiam
required
limit
class
murderers
death
penalty
may
applied
narrowing
requirement
usually
met
trier
fact
finds
least
one
statutorily
defined
eligibility
factor
either
guilt
penalty
phase
see
tuilaepa
california
narrowing
requirement
satisfied
sentencer
called
upon
determine
whether
defendant
thus
found
eligible
death
penalty
fact
receive
channel
function
specifying
aggravating
factors
sometimes
identical
eligibility
factors
weighed
mitigating
considerations
issue
line
cases
confront
happens
sentencer
imposes
death
penalty
least
one
valid
eligibility
factor
found
scheme
eligibility
factor
specified
aggravating
factor
later
held
invalid
answer
question
jurisprudence
distinguished
weighing
terminology
somewhat
misleading
since
held
capital
cases
sentencer
must
allowed
weigh
facts
circumstances
arguably
justify
death
sentence
defendant
mitigating
evidence
see
eddings
oklahoma
terminology
adopted
moreover
relatively
early
development
jurisprudence
perhaps
unaware
great
variety
forms
state
legislation
ultimately
take
identified
weighing
state
aggravating
factors
permitted
considered
sentencer
specified
eligibility
factors
see
parker
dugger
citing
stat
richmond
lewis
quoting
rev
stat
ann
since
eligibility
factors
definition
identified
distinct
particular
aggravating
features
one
invalid
jury
consider
facts
circumstances
relevant
factor
aggravating
capacity
example
relevant
omnibus
circumstances
crime
sentencing
factor
one
present
case
weighing
state
therefore
sentencer
consideration
invalid
eligibility
factor
necessarily
skewed
balancing
aggravators
mitigators
stringer
required
reversal
sentence
unless
state
appellate
determined
error
harmless
reweighed
mitigating
evidence
valid
aggravating
factors
ibid
contrast
state
state
permitted
sentencer
consider
aggravating
factors
different
addition
eligibility
factors
automatic
skewing
necessarily
occur
never
occur
aggravating
factors
entirely
different
eligibility
factors
occur
aggravating
factors
added
eligibility
factors
category
omnibus
circumstances
crime
factor
quite
common
allow
facts
circumstances
relevant
invalidated
eligibility
factor
weighed
aggravation
different
rubric
therefore
set
forth
different
rules
governing
consequences
invalidated
eligibility
factor
sentencer
consideration
invalid
eligibility
factor
amounts
constitutional
error
state
two
situations
first
due
process
requires
defendant
death
sentence
set
aside
reason
invalidity
eligibility
factor
authorizes
jury
draw
adverse
inferences
conduct
constitutionally
protected
attache
label
factors
constitutionally
impermissible
totally
irrelevant
sentencing
process
conduct
actually
militate
favor
lesser
penalty
zant
per
curiam
scheme
accurate
far
goes
seems
us
needlessly
complex
incapable
providing
full
range
possible
variations
example
problem
gave
rise
jurisprudence
arise
sentencing
factor
eligibility
factor
later
found
invalid
weighing
process
clearly
prima
facie
skewed
skewed
basic
reason
sentencer
might
given
weight
statutorily
constitutionally
invalid
prima
facie
skewing
appropriate
cases
shown
illusory
reason
separates
weighing
one
aggravating
factors
usually
omnibus
factor
conceivably
another
one
made
entirely
proper
jury
consider
aggravating
facts
circumstances
underlying
invalidated
factor
think
clarify
analysis
simplify
factors
hitherto
applied
see
supra
henceforth
guided
following
rule
invalidated
sentencing
factor
whether
eligibility
factor
render
sentence
unconstitutional
reason
adding
improper
element
aggravation
scale
weighing
unless
one
sentencing
factors
enables
sentencer
give
aggravating
weight
facts
circumstances
test
justice
breyer
describes
inquiry
based
solely
admissibility
underlying
evidence
post
dissenting
opinion
presence
invalid
sentencing
factor
allowed
sentencer
consider
evidence
otherwise
due
process
mandate
reversal
without
regard
rule
apply
see
supra
see
also
issue
confront
skewing
result
jury
considering
aggravation
properly
admitted
evidence
weighed
favor
death
penalty
see
stringer
hen
sentencing
body
told
weigh
invalid
factor
decision
reviewing
may
assume
made
difference
thumb
removed
death
side
explained
skewing
occur
give
rise
constitutional
error
jury
given
aggravating
weight
facts
circumstances
rubric
valid
sentencing
factor
iii
california
defendant
convicted
murder
eligible
death
penalty
jury
finds
one
special
circumstances
listed
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
true
eligibility
factors
designed
satisfy
furman
see
people
bacigalupo
cal
jury
finds
existence
one
special
circumstances
instructed
take
account
separate
list
sentencing
factors
describing
aspects
defendant
crime
cal
penal
code
ann
west
sentencing
factors
include
said
circumstances
crime
defendant
convicted
present
proceeding
appeals
held
california
weighing
state
sentencer
restricted
weighing
aggravation
mitigation
sentencer
prevented
considering
evidence
aggravation
discrete
factors
brackets
original
quoting
williams
calderon
last
statement
inaccurate
circumstances
crime
factor
hardly
called
discrete
effect
rendering
specified
factors
nonexclusive
thus
causing
california
prior
terminology
state
contrary
sanders
contention
justice
stevens
views
dissent
mere
fact
sentencing
factors
included
existence
special
circumstances
eligibility
factors
found
true
cal
penal
code
ann
make
california
weighing
state
fact
redundant
purposes
weighing
jurisprudence
way
narrowed
universe
aggravating
facts
jury
entitled
consider
determining
leaving
aside
dichotomy
proceeding
direct
analysis
set
forth
earlier
opinion
aggravating
facts
circumstances
invalidated
factor
permitted
jury
consider
also
open
proper
consideration
one
factors
erroneous
factor
skewed
sentence
constitutional
violation
occurred
specifically
sanders
jury
found
four
special
circumstances
true
murder
committed
defendant
engaged
robbery
west
supp
committed
defendant
engaged
burglary
first
second
degree
victim
allen
witness
crime
intentionally
killed
purpose
preventing
testimony
criminal
proceeding
murder
especially
heinous
atrocious
cruel
california
set
aside
special
circumstance
state
merger
law
instructions
permitted
jury
find
burglary
thus
special
circumstance
based
sanders
intent
commit
assault
already
element
homicide
see
people
wilson
cal
banc
cal
invalidated
heinous
atrocious
cruel
special
circumstance
previously
found
unconstitutionally
vague
citing
people
superior
cal
california
noted
however
jury
properly
considered
two
special
circumstances
eligibility
factors
cal
sufficient
satisfy
furman
narrowing
requirement
alone
rendered
sanders
eligible
death
penalty
moreover
jury
consideration
invalid
eligibility
factors
weighing
process
produce
constitutional
error
facts
circumstances
admissible
establish
heinous
atrocious
cruel
eligibility
factors
also
properly
adduced
aggravating
facts
bearing
upon
circumstances
crime
sentencing
factor
properly
considered
whether
bore
upon
invalidated
eligibility
factors
see
cal
sanders
argues
weighing
process
skewed
fact
jury
asked
consider
one
sentencing
factors
existence
special
circumstances
eligibility
factors
found
true
cal
penal
code
ann
west
sanders
view
placed
special
emphasis
upon
facts
circumstances
relevant
invalid
eligibility
factor
virtually
thing
happened
zant
georgia
jury
permitted
evidence
extenuation
mitigation
aggravation
punishment
quoting
zant
stephens
also
instructed
specifically
consider
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
find
supported
evidence
instruction
gave
facts
underlying
eligibility
factors
special
prominence
yet
even
though
one
three
factors
defendant
substantial
history
serious
assaultive
convictions
later
invalidated
upheld
sentence
acknowledged
erroneous
instruction
might
caused
jury
give
somewhat
greater
weight
respondent
prior
criminal
record
otherwise
given
indeed
assumed
effect
ibid
effect
merely
consequence
statutory
label
aggravating
circumstanc
agreed
georgia
impact
held
fairly
regarded
constitutional
defect
sentencing
process
ibid
true
jury
consideration
invalid
special
circumstances
gave
rise
constitutional
violation
appeals
erred
ordering
habeas
relief
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
jill
brown
warden
petitioner
ronald
sanders
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
january
justice
stevens
justice
souter
joins
dissenting
prior
cases
drawn
simple
categorical
distinction
nonweighing
state
weighing
state
former
sole
function
aggravating
circumstance
finding
make
defendant
eligible
death
penalty
see
zant
stephens
georgia
finding
aggravating
circumstance
play
role
guiding
sentencing
body
exercise
discretion
impose
death
penalty
apart
function
narrowing
class
persons
convicted
murder
eligible
death
penalty
latter
finding
performs
second
function
provides
reason
deciding
impose
sentence
eligible
defendant
see
clemons
mississippi
mississippi
unlike
georgia
scheme
considered
zant
finding
aggravating
factors
part
jury
sentencing
determination
jury
required
weigh
mitigating
factors
aggravating
circumstances
thus
nonweighing
state
finding
four
aggravating
circumstances
legal
significance
finding
three
invalidation
one
presumptively
harmless
see
stringer
black
nonweighing
state
long
sentencing
body
finds
least
one
valid
aggravating
factor
fact
also
finds
invalid
aggravating
factor
infect
formal
process
deciding
whether
death
appropriate
penalty
contrast
jury
told
weigh
aggravating
circumstances
mitigating
evidence
making
penalty
decision
four
aggravators
presumptively
weighty
three
see
ibid
hen
sentencing
body
told
weigh
invalid
factor
decision
reviewing
may
assume
made
difference
thumb
removed
death
side
scale
example
jury
incorrectly
informed
finding
killing
heinous
atrocious
cruel
provides
reason
imposing
death
see
generally
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
error
may
well
affect
jury
deliberations
told
weigh
circumstances
crime
existence
aggravating
circumstances
found
true
west
emphasis
added
jury
may
consider
conclusion
killing
heinous
separately
circumstances
crime
underlying
erroneous
conclusion
improperly
counting
nature
crime
twice
determining
whether
sentence
death
warranted
jury
recognizing
legislature
decided
heinous
atrocious
cruel
murder
without
worthy
death
penalty
may
consider
legislative
imprimatur
decision
impose
death
therefore
give
greater
weight
improper
heinousness
finding
circumstances
crime
otherwise
dictate
either
scenario
weight
added
death
side
scale
one
presume
weight
made
difference
jury
ultimate
conclusion
course
different
weighing
systems
jury
told
specific
aggravating
circumstances
making
defendant
eligible
death
penalty
may
provide
reasons
imposing
penalty
consideration
invalid
factor
obviously
prejudicial
jury
told
may
also
consider
circumstances
crime
fact
california
sentencing
juries
may
consider
circumstances
increases
likelihood
consideration
subsequently
invalidated
aggravating
circumstance
harmless
take
california
weighing
state
category
majority
however
decided
convert
distinction
one
focused
role
aggravating
circumstances
play
jury
sentencing
deliberations
one
focused
evidence
jury
may
consider
deliberations
compare
stringer
explaining
mississippi
weighing
state
jury
must
weigh
aggravating
circumstances
mitigating
evidence
choosing
whether
impose
death
penalty
georgia
nonweighing
state
aggravating
factors
specific
function
decision
ante
invalidated
sentencing
factor
whether
eligibility
factor
render
sentence
unconstitutional
reason
adding
improper
element
aggravation
scale
weighing
process
unless
one
sentencing
factors
enables
sentencer
give
aggravating
weight
facts
circumstances
omitted
whether
aggravating
circumstance
finding
plays
role
jury
decision
impose
death
penalty
nothing
whether
jury
may
separately
consider
crime
case
question
presented
us
might
well
concluded
error
harmless
see
generally
brecht
abrahamson
state
merely
asked
us
decide
whether
california
weighing
state
see
pet
cert
appeals
correctly
decided
statutory
text
unambiguously
answered
question
cf
enumerating
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
requiring
trier
fact
impose
sentence
death
concludes
aggravating
circumstances
outweigh
mitigating
circumstances
instead
heeding
plain
language
chosen
modify
settled
law
ignoring
dual
role
played
aggravating
circumstances
california
death
penalty
regime
decision
likely
complicate
clarify
capital
sentencing
jurisprudence
respectfully
dissent
jill
brown
warden
petitioner
ronald
sanders
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
january
justice
breyer
justice
ginsburg
joins
dissenting
question
us
whether
california
approach
imposing
death
penalty
makes
california
weighing
nonweighing
state
purposes
determining
whether
apply
review
certain
kind
death
case
namely
case
death
sentence
rests
part
invalid
aggravating
circumstance
view
matter
whether
california
weighing
nonweighing
state
ordinary
rules
appellate
review
apply
reviewing
must
find
jury
consideration
invalid
aggravator
harmless
beyond
reasonable
doubt
regardless
form
state
death
penalty
law
takes
understand
answer
one
must
fully
understand
question
including
somewhat
misleading
terminology
question
phrased
death
penalty
proceedings
take
place
two
stages
first
stage
jury
must
determine
whether
something
especially
wrongful
aggravating
defendant
conduct
state
statutes
typically
list
specific
aggravating
factors
jury
typically
must
find
least
one
factor
present
defendant
become
eligible
death
penalty
jury
narrows
class
persons
eligible
death
penalty
according
objective
legislative
definition
required
eighth
amendment
lowenfield
phelps
jury
finds
aggravating
factor
present
defendant
consequently
eligible
death
penalty
proceeds
stage
two
stage
two
jury
sometimes
judge
must
determine
whether
sentence
defendant
death
provide
different
sentence
usually
life
imprisonment
stage
said
divide
approach
weighing
tell
jury
consider
mitigating
factors
weigh
specific
aggravating
factors
found
stage
one
made
defendant
eligible
death
penalty
aggravating
factors
predominate
must
sentence
defendant
death
otherwise
may
law
tells
jury
weigh
statutory
aggravating
factors
typically
factors
considered
stage
one
mitigating
factors
called
weighing
something
misnomer
jury
weigh
everything
instead
limited
weighing
certain
statutorily
defined
aggravating
factors
identified
mississippi
classic
example
weighing
state
see
stringer
black
nonweighing
tell
jury
consider
mitigating
factors
weigh
simply
statutory
aggravating
factors
previously
found
stage
one
factors
consider
aggravating
balance
includes
aggravating
factors
stage
one
eligibility
list
called
nonweighing
although
might
clearer
call
complete
weighing
jury
weigh
everything
properly
admissible
shall
continue
use
traditional
terminology
identified
georgia
prototypical
example
state
adopted
complete
weighing
approach
ibid
question
case
arises
following
circumstances
stage
one
jury
found
several
aggravating
factors
presence
one
make
defendant
eligible
death
penalty
least
one
aggravating
factors
improper
factor
factor
law
forbids
jury
considering
aggravating
jury
use
purpose
later
invalidated
appeal
sentencing
made
mistake
indeed
mistake
constitutional
dimensions
listed
heinous
atrocious
cruel
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
aggravating
factor
one
several
factors
jury
consider
stage
one
see
godfrey
georgia
plurality
opinion
mistake
forbid
application
death
penalty
jury
also
found
listed
aggravating
factors
presence
one
made
defendant
eligible
death
penalty
evidence
sentencing
jury
stage
two
properly
admitted
evidence
supported
improper
heinousness
factor
example
also
showed
crime
committed
jury
clearly
entitled
consider
given
outline
problem
two
questions
follow
question
one
possible
judge
legal
mistake
stage
one
telling
jury
determine
heinous
atrocious
cruel
aggravator
present
prejudiced
jury
decisionmaking
stage
two
words
mistake
create
harmful
error
causing
jury
impose
death
sentence
due
fact
told
give
special
weight
heinousness
finding
lower
courts
read
opinions
say
nonweighing
state
answer
must
weighing
state
answer
might
yes
question
two
given
lower
courts
answer
question
one
california
nonweighing
state
reviewing
assume
without
going
error
arising
sentencing
judge
listed
invalid
aggravator
harmless
california
weighing
state
reviewing
gone
determined
whether
error
fact
harmless
answer
question
two
holding
lower
courts
misunderstood
answer
question
one
despite
occasional
suggestion
contrary
distinction
little
need
determine
whether
error
harmless
moreover
given
need
reliable
decisionmaking
death
penalty
issue
deck
missouri
slip
reviewing
courts
decide
error
harmful
regardless
form
state
death
penalty
law
takes
ii
distinguish
weighing
nonweighing
purposes
determining
whether
apply
analysis
unrealistic
impractical
legally
unnecessary
use
distinction
unrealistic
unrelated
plausible
conception
capital
sentencing
jury
actually
reaches
decision
first
consider
kind
error
issue
error
improper
admission
evidence
see
infra
error
importance
jury
might
attach
certain
admissible
evidence
using
metaphor
thumb
death
side
scale
identified
error
possibility
randomness
also
bias
favor
death
penalty
stringer
black
employing
invalid
aggravating
factor
weighing
process
creates
possibility
randomness
placing
thumb
death
side
scale
thus
creating
risk
treating
defendant
deserving
death
penalty
citations
alterations
omitted
second
consider
error
affect
decision
impose
death
error
causes
harm
jury
given
special
weight
finding
evidence
shows
invalid
aggravating
factor
jury
might
judge
prosecutor
led
believe
state
law
attaches
particular
importance
factor
indeed
else
state
call
factor
aggravator
permit
render
defendant
death
eligible
see
zant
stephens
recognizing
statutory
label
arguably
might
caused
jury
give
somewhat
greater
weight
respondent
prior
criminal
record
otherwise
given
see
also
ante
stevens
dissenting
noting
jury
may
consider
aggravating
label
legislative
imprimatur
decision
impose
death
therefore
give
greater
weight
improper
heinousness
finding
clemons
mississippi
noting
prosecutor
repeatedly
emphasized
argued
heinous
factor
sentencing
hearing
remanding
mississippi
conduct
review
risk
jury
give
greater
weight
stage
two
stage
one
finding
aggravating
factor
factor
turns
never
found
first
instance
significant
weighing
state
judge
explicitly
tell
jury
consider
particular
aggravating
factor
decisionmaking
process
risk
may
prove
significant
nonweighing
state
well
judge
may
tell
jury
consider
aggravating
factor
decisionmaking
process
difference
two
kinds
nonweighing
state
jury
also
consider
aggravating
factors
usually
enumerated
statute
cf
code
ann
judge
jury
shall
consider
mitigating
circumstances
aggravating
circumstances
otherwise
authorized
law
following
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
may
supported
evidence
emphasis
added
potential
kind
constitutional
harm
exists
kinds
namely
jury
attach
special
weight
aggravator
scale
aggravator
law
says
illustrate
point
consider
following
two
statements
statement
one
judge
tells
jury
weighing
state
sentence
defendant
death
find
one
following
three
aggravating
circumstances
law
requires
consider
aggravators
weigh
mitigators
statement
two
judge
tells
jury
nonweighing
state
sentence
defendant
death
find
one
following
three
aggravating
circumstances
law
permits
consider
mitigating
aggravating
evidence
including
reaching
decision
meaningful
difference
two
statements
decisionmaking
process
first
jury
second
jury
differ
significantly
juries
weigh
evidence
offered
aggravation
evidence
offered
mitigation
cf
brief
criminal
justice
legal
foundation
amicus
curiae
reality
sentencers
statement
one
amounts
harmful
error
prosecutor
emphasized
importance
wrongfully
listed
factor
statement
two
amount
similarly
harmful
error
instances
jury
might
put
special
weight
upon
previous
finding
factor
surprising
commentators
found
unsatisfactory
efforts
distinguish
two
statements
purposes
see
steiker
steiker
sober
second
thoughts
reflections
two
decades
constitutional
regulation
capital
punishment
harv
rev
different
doctrinal
approaches
schemes
difficult
justify
given
sentencer
decisionmaking
process
likely
similar
either
scheme
widder
hanging
life
balance
metaphor
weighing
penalty
phase
capital
trial
tulane
rev
arguing
distinction
largely
illusion
appears
derived
fixation
literal
meaning
metaphor
weighing
remains
common
means
describing
capital
sentencing
process
even
decisions
state
courts
rely
status
statutory
schemes
uphold
death
sentences
resting
invalid
factors
distinction
impractical
administer
creates
two
paradigms
weigh
statutory
aggravators
weigh
circumstances
statutory
nonstatutory
aggravators
many
however
fall
somewhere
two
paradigms
state
example
might
set
aggravating
factors
making
defendant
eligible
death
penalty
additional
set
sentencing
factors
unrelated
eligibility
determination
designed
channel
jury
discretion
california
state
requires
jury
take
account
aggravating
factors
sentencing
factors
including
omnibus
factor
permits
consideration
circumstances
crime
cal
penal
code
ann
west
many
collapse
stage
one
eligibility
stage
two
sentence
selection
single
proceeding
jury
hears
evidence
time
permit
prosecution
introduce
argue
relevant
evidence
including
evidence
related
statutory
aggravators
indeed
one
state
characterized
weighing
state
mississippi
one
state
characterized
nonweighing
state
virginia
fall
intermediate
category
miss
code
ann
code
ann
lexis
efforts
classify
varied
schemes
purposes
applying
analysis
produce
much
legal
heat
casting
little
light
precedents
read
detail
require
us
maintain
unrealistic
impractical
distinction
discussed
matter
three
key
cases
first
case
zant
stephens
considered
error
arose
georgia
nonweighing
state
georgia
held
one
several
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
found
jury
defendant
history
serious
assaultive
criminal
unconstitutionally
vague
jury
however
also
found
aggravators
present
defendant
remained
eligible
death
georgia
concluded
sentencing
instruction
unconstitutional
factor
though
erroneous
inconsequential
impact
jury
decision
regarding
death
penalty
quoting
zant
stephens
agreed
georgia
conclusion
conceded
label
aggravating
circumstance
created
risk
jury
might
place
much
weight
evidence
showed
aggravator
indeed
said
statutory
label
might
arguably
caused
jury
give
somewhat
greater
weight
respondent
prior
criminal
record
otherwise
given
concluded
circumstances
error
harmless
one
thing
georgia
statute
permitted
jury
consider
specific
aggravators
related
stage
one
see
another
thing
trial
instructions
place
particular
emphasis
role
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
jury
ultimate
decision
citation
omitted
fact
specifically
told
jury
facts
circumstances
presented
ext
nuation
mitigation
aggravation
ibid
finally
indication
either
judge
prosecutor
tried
single
erroneous
aggravator
special
weight
circumstances
real
harm
concluded
possible
impact
fairly
regarded
constitutional
defect
sentencing
process
ibid
zant
say
jury
consideration
improper
aggravator
never
harmless
state
like
georgia
say
jury
consideration
improper
aggravator
harmless
circumstances
case
detailed
discussion
jury
instructions
inconsistent
rule
law
require
automatic
conclusion
harmless
error
death
penalty
laws
like
georgia
see
see
also
georgia
sentencing
scheme
trial
judge
instructions
case
suggestion
made
presence
one
aggravating
circumstance
given
special
weight
emphasis
added
dissent
zant
also
clearly
understood
principal
opinion
conducted
analysis
opinion
marshall
joined
brennan
repeated
understanding
case
decided
two
weeks
later
barclay
florida
plurality
opinion
upholding
death
sentence
concluding
need
apply
type
federal
analysis
necessary
zant
second
case
clemons
mississippi
involved
weighing
state
mississippi
mississippi
upheld
petitioner
death
sentence
even
though
jury
instruction
regarding
one
aggravating
factors
pressed
state
murder
heinous
atrocious
cruel
constitutionally
invalid
finding
unclear
whether
state
reweighed
aggravating
mitigating
evidence
conducted
review
vacated
remanded
mississippi
conduct
either
procedure
remand
sentencing
jury
first
instance
far
analysis
reveals
reason
remanded
reason
thought
error
might
harmless
nothing
fact
mississippi
weighing
state
cf
ante
rather
thought
error
might
harmful
state
repeatedly
emphasized
argued
heinous
factor
sentencing
hearing
stark
contrast
little
emphasis
gave
valid
aggravator
found
jury
concluded
nder
circumstances
require
detailed
explanation
based
record
us
possibly
agree
error
giving
invalid
heinous
instruction
harmless
third
case
stringer
black
presented
different
kind
question
purposes
teague
lane
rule
vague
aggravating
circumstance
violates
eighth
amendment
apply
weighing
state
like
mississippi
way
applies
nonweighing
state
like
georgia
answered
question
yes
described
difference
mississippi
system
georgia
system
follows
nonweighing
state
long
sentencing
body
finds
least
one
valid
aggravating
factor
fact
also
finds
invalid
aggravating
factor
infect
formal
process
deciding
whether
death
appropriate
penalty
assuming
determination
state
appellate
invalid
factor
made
difference
jury
determination
constitutional
violation
resulting
introduction
invalid
factor
earlier
stage
proceedings
sentencing
body
told
weigh
invalid
factor
decision
reviewing
may
assume
made
difference
thumb
removed
death
side
scale
weighing
process
skewed
constitutional
analysis
reweighing
trial
appellate
level
suffices
guarantee
defendant
received
individualized
sentence
emphasis
added
first
sentence
statement
first
suggestion
cases
submission
vague
aggravating
circumstance
jury
never
result
constitutional
error
nonweighing
state
indeed
term
nonweighing
state
significance
attached
appear
jurisprudence
prior
stringer
second
sentence
statement
less
categorical
first
suggests
state
appellate
make
form
inquiry
satisfy
invalidated
factor
made
difference
jury
determination
conclude
constitutional
violation
ibid
given
errant
language
stringer
agree
ot
surprisin
lower
courts
since
operated
assumption
different
rules
apply
weighing
review
necessary
former
ante
point
simply
assumption
unfounded
based
prior
cases
regardless
lower
courts
interpretation
precedents
think
important
decisions
repeated
stringer
characterization
precedents
see
tuggle
netherland
per
curiam
characterizing
zant
holding
death
sentence
supported
multiple
aggravating
circumstances
need
always
set
aside
one
aggravator
found
invalid
emphasis
added
reasons
stated
parts
supra
take
single
ambiguous
sentence
dicta
derive
rule
law
unjustified
cases
error
fact
harmful
deprive
defendant
fair
reliable
sentencing
proceeding
iii
upshot
require
reviewing
examine
whether
jury
consideration
unconstitutional
aggravating
factor
harmful
regardless
whether
state
weighing
state
nonweighing
state
hold
fact
state
nonweighing
state
may
make
possibility
harmful
error
less
likely
excuse
reviewing
ensuring
error
fact
harmless
cases
area
require
different
result
iv
reaches
somewhat
similar
conclusion
abolish
least
diminish
importance
distinction
purposes
analysis
surprisingly
also
diminishes
need
conduct
review
evidence
properly
admitted
jury
use
evidence
considers
aggravating
factors
error
announces
must
harmless
see
ante
holding
one
sentencing
factors
enables
sentencer
give
aggravating
weight
facts
circumstances
underlie
invalidated
aggravating
factor
reviewing
need
apply
review
common
sense
suggests
however
explicitly
held
problem
us
problem
admissibility
certain
evidence
problem
emphasis
given
evidence
state
trial
improper
emphasis
strong
enough
wrongly
place
thumb
death
side
scale
stage
two
sentencing
said
stringer
necessarily
implied
zant
held
clemons
believe
right
depart
implication
errant
sentence
stringer
wrong
depart
without
explanation
clemons
unanimous
holding
holding
least
two
members
explicitly
recognized
see
pensinger
california
joined
kennedy
dissenting
denial
certiorari
noting
heinous
instruction
change
mix
evidence
presented
jury
clemons
fact
alone
support
finding
harmlessness
reconcile
holding
clemons
opinion
makes
clear
issue
one
emphasis
evidence
indeed
explicitly
disavowed
suggestion
mississippi
reliance
heinous
factor
led
introduction
evidence
otherwise
admissible
either
guilt
sentencing
phases
proceeding
circumstances
surrounding
murder
already
aired
guilt
phase
trial
jury
clearly
entitled
consider
evidence
imposing
sentence
entire
agreed
potentially
improper
emphasis
consisted
fact
state
repeatedly
emphasized
argued
heinous
factor
sentencing
hearing
placing
little
emphasis
sole
valid
aggravator
robbery
pecuniary
gain
see
also
blackmun
joined
marshall
stevens
concurring
part
dissenting
part
answer
assert
clemons
maintains
distinction
envisioned
zant
ante
citing
clemons
supra
clemons
thing
although
observe
differences
statutory
schemes
georgia
mississippi
certainly
claims
suggest
analysis
never
conducted
former
always
conducted
latter
rather
made
unremarkable
statement
state
like
georgia
aggravating
circumstances
serve
make
defendant
eligible
death
penalty
determine
punishment
invalidation
one
aggravating
circumstance
necessarily
require
appellate
vacate
death
sentence
remand
jury
clemons
supra
emphasis
added
course
implication
qualifier
necessarily
cases
jury
consideration
invalidated
aggravating
circumstance
might
require
death
sentence
vacated
even
state
like
georgia
sum
inquiry
based
solely
admissibility
underlying
evidence
inconsistent
previous
cases
explained
see
supra
potential
tilting
scales
toward
death
present
even
like
georgia
virginia
permit
jury
consider
circumstances
crime
may
well
errors
issue
case
harmless
state
california
ask
us
consider
ninth
circuit
contrary
view
done
given
fact
like
respect
abolish
distinction
light
explanation
kind
error
issue
remand
case
require
ninth
circuit
reconsider
entire
decision
light
considerations
described
footnotes
sanders
filed
habeas
petition
april
apply
substantive
review
standards
required
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
stat
see
lindh
murphy
cases
frequently
employed
terms
aggravating
circumstance
aggravating
factor
refer
statutory
factors
determine
death
eligibility
satisfaction
furman
narrowing
requirement
see
tuilaepa
california
terminology
becomes
confusing
case
state
employs
term
aggravating
circumstance
refer
factors
play
different
role
determining
defendants
eligible
death
penalty
actually
receive
penalty
see
cal
penal
code
ann
west
avoid
confusion
opinion
use
term
eligibility
factor
describe
factor
performs
constitutional
narrowing
function
justice
breyer
contends
review
applies
weighing
see
post
dissenting
opinion
strange
indeed
discover
late
stage
distinction
two
sorts
purposes
reviewing
invalid
eligibility
factors
fact
made
difference
stringer
black
distinction
critical
importance
surprisingly
courts
appeals
uniformly
understood
different
rules
apply
weighing
review
necessary
former
see
sanders
woodford
flamer
delaware
williams
cain
cases
moreover
flatly
inconsistent
requiring
review
types
justice
breyer
notes
post
zant
stephens
endorse
georgia
holding
attaching
statutory
label
aggravating
invalid
eligibility
factor
inconsequential
impact
jury
decision
regarding
death
penalty
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
core
holding
said
next
importantly
possible
impact
fairly
regarded
constitutional
defect
sentencing
process
ibid
emphasis
added
see
also
post
zant
must
therefore
read
holding
constitutional
error
harmless
rejecting
respondent
claim
constitutional
error
neither
clemons
mississippi
stringer
says
anything
contrary
justice
breyer
points
clemons
discussion
focused
emphasis
given
invalid
factor
rather
fact
mississippi
weighing
state
hardly
relevant
discussion
analysis
conducted
issue
passage
clemons
justice
breyer
cites
says
nothing
analysis
conducted
issue
addressed
distinction
latter
question
clemons
maintains
distinction
envisioned
zant
see
georgia
state
mississippi
weighing
state
see
clemons
supra
likewise
stringer
specifically
distinguishes
fact
jury
also
finds
invalid
aggravating
factor
infect
formal
process
deciding
whether
death
appropriate
penalty
weighing
constitutional
analysis
reweighing
trial
appellate
level
required
ibid
fact
sentencer
consideration
invalid
eligibility
factor
state
may
nonetheless
amount
constitutional
error
explains
tuggle
characterization
zant
holding
death
sentence
supported
multiple
aggravating
circumstances
need
always
set
aside
one
aggravator
found
invalid
emphasis
added
cf
post
breyer
dissenting
well
related
comment
clemons
state
like
georgia
invalidation
one
aggravating
circumstance
necessarily
require
appellate
vacate
death
sentence
remand
jury
emphasis
added
cf
post
breyer
dissenting
problem
may
present
stringer
black
supra
although
mississippi
courts
invalidated
aggravating
circumstance
whether
murder
especially
heinous
atrocious
cruel
miss
code
ann
cum
supp
one
specified
eligibility
factors
see
nonetheless
treated
mississippi
weighing
state
since
however
mississippi
law
provided
jury
impose
death
sentence
unless
found
existence
least
one
statutory
aggravating
factor
see
cum
supp
argued
additional
aggravating
factors
converted
de
facto
eligibility
factors
may
distortions
caused
invalidated
factor
beyond
mere
addition
improper
aggravating
element
example
jury
instructed
consider
aggravating
factor
might
actually
militate
favor
lesser
penalty
zant
supra
see
supra
explains
clemons
mississippi
supra
justice
breyer
relies
see
post
addressed
petitioner
argument
mississippi
arbitrarily
refused
order
jury
resentencing
even
though
done
earlier
case
johnson
state
rev
remand
distinguished
two
cases
noting
johnson
jury
permitted
consider
inadmissible
evidence
determining
defendant
sentence
whereas
clemons
serious
suggestion
state
reliance
invalid
factor
led
introduction
evidence
otherwise
admissible
either
guilt
sentencing
phases
proceeding
crux
distinction
sentencer
consideration
improper
evidence
error
distinct
one
issue
clemons
jury
weighing
favor
death
factor
part
calculus
justice
stevens
argues
may
affected
jury
deliberations
ways
rejected
theories
zant
stephens
possibility
jury
coun
nature
crime
twice
post
stevens
dissenting
instructed
consider
facts
crime
eligibility
circumstances
present
zant
jury
told
take
account
relevant
circumstances
also
much
like
jury
instructed
consider
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
eligibility
factors
find
supported
evidence
likewise
jury
zant
might
give
greater
weight
post
stevens
dissenting
facts
underlying
eligibility
circumstances
explicitly
held
effect
fairly
regarded
constitutional
defect
sentencing
process
see
infra