ayers
acting
warden
belmontes
argued
october
decided
november
penalty
phase
respondent
capital
murder
trial
introduced
mitigating
evidence
show
inter
alia
lead
constructive
life
incarcerated
rather
executed
testifying
done
previous
incarceration
embraced
christianity
two
prison
chaplains
christian
sponsors
time
testified
behalf
parties
closing
arguments
discussed
mitigating
evidence
jury
consider
trial
judge
told
jury
consider
ny
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
instruction
known
factor
california
statutory
scheme
respondent
sentenced
death
contended
direct
review
federal
habeas
proceedings
factor
trial
instructions
barred
jury
considering
mitigation
evidence
violation
eighth
amendment
right
present
mitigating
evidence
capital
sentencing
proceedings
federal
district
denied
relief
ninth
circuit
reversed
reconsideration
light
brown
payton
ninth
circuit
invalidated
respondent
sentence
held
factor
instruction
consistent
constitutional
right
present
mitigating
evidence
capital
sentencing
proceedings
pp
previously
found
factor
preclude
consideration
constitutionally
relevant
evidence
mitigating
evidence
defendant
precrime
background
character
boyde
california
postcrime
rehabilitation
brown
payton
supra
found
proper
inquiry
whether
reasonable
likelihood
jury
applied
challenged
instruction
way
prevents
consideration
constitutionally
relevant
evidence
boyde
supra
pp
inquiry
applies
like
payton
case
involves
evidence
comes
federal
habeas
proceedings
unlike
payton
filed
effective
date
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
aedpa
ninth
circuit
distinguished
payton
ground
erred
finding
reasonable
probability
jury
consider
evidence
respondent
future
potential
pp
circuit
adopted
narrow
unrealistic
interpretation
factor
ruling
instruction
allows
jury
consider
evidence
bears
upon
commission
crime
defendant
excuses
mitigates
culpability
offense
boyde
payton
explain
jury
directed
consider
circumstance
might
excuse
crime
boyde
supra
precrime
background
character
boyde
postcrime
rehabilitation
payton
may
extenuat
gravity
crime
may
likelihood
future
good
conduct
count
circumstance
tending
make
defendant
less
deserving
death
penalty
ninth
circuit
failed
heed
full
import
payton
holding
significant
even
aedpa
inapplicable
moreover
since
respondent
sought
extrapolate
future
behavior
precrime
conduct
mitigation
theory
analogous
evidence
boyde
found
fall
within
factor
purview
pp
interpretation
factor
one
consistent
evidence
presented
jury
parties
closing
arguments
trial
instructions
improbable
jury
believed
parties
engaged
exercise
futility
respondent
presented
extensive
evidence
open
prosecution
defense
arguments
assumed
evidence
relevant
prosecutor
remarks
evidence
weak
opinion
weight
given
confirmed
jury
analyze
respondent
future
potential
respondent
personal
pleas
consistent
trial
jury
assess
future
prospects
determining
sentence
impose
analysis
confirmed
defense
counsel
closing
arguments
trial
instructions
make
quite
implausible
jury
deem
foreclosed
considering
respondent
full
case
mitigation
judge
told
jury
consider
evidence
included
respondent
mitigation
case
sharp
contrast
aggravation
instruction
enumerated
factors
considered
mitigation
one
listed
factors
merely
examples
also
made
clear
jury
take
broad
view
mitigating
evidence
concluding
otherwise
ninth
circuit
cited
juror
queries
evidence
confusion
assuming
interpretation
correct
conclusion
juror
likely
ignored
evidence
presupposes
purports
establish
namely
evidence
fall
within
factor
pp
reversed
remanded
kennedy
delivered
opinion
roberts
scalia
thomas
alito
joined
scalia
filed
concurring
opinion
thomas
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
robert
ayers
acting
warden
tioner
fernando
belmontes
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
november
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
fernando
belmontes
respondent
tried
superior
state
california
county
san
joaquin
jury
returned
verdict
murder
first
degree
determined
sentenced
death
issue
us
concerns
jury
instruction
sentencing
phase
trial
following
statute
effect
directed
jury
instructions
context
discussed
detail
consider
certain
specific
factors
either
aggravating
mitigating
trial
instructed
jury
consider
ny
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
app
statutory
scheme
general
catchall
factor
codified
cal
penal
code
ann
west
referred
factor
belmontes
contended
direct
review
state
collateral
proceedings
federal
habeas
proceedings
giving
rise
case
factor
trial
instructions
barred
jury
considering
mitigation
evidence
specifically
evidence
likely
lead
constructive
life
incarcerated
instead
executed
alleged
limitation
view
prevented
jury
considering
relevant
mitigation
evidence
violation
eighth
amendment
right
present
mitigating
evidence
capital
sentencing
proceedings
see
penry
johnson
skipper
south
carolina
eddings
oklahoma
california
affirming
judgment
sentence
rejected
contention
challenges
people
belmontes
cal
february
exhausting
state
remedies
respondent
filed
amended
federal
habeas
petition
district
eastern
district
california
denied
relief
app
pet
cert
divided
panel
appeals
ninth
circuit
reversed
relevant
part
belmontes
woodford
dissent
eight
judges
appeals
denied
rehearing
en
banc
belmontes
woodford
granted
certiorari
vacated
judgment
remanded
consideration
light
brown
payton
brown
belmontes
remand
divided
panel
invalidated
respondent
sentence
distinguished
payton
grounds
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
aedpa
stat
though
applicable
case
apply
belmontes
brown
yet
another
dissent
appeals
denied
rehearing
en
banc
belmontes
stokes
granted
certiorari
reverse
evidence
trial
showed
march
burglarizing
home
two
accomplices
attended
party
respondent
unexpectedly
encountered
steacy
mcconnell
respondent
killed
striking
head
times
steel
dumbbell
bar
respondent
armed
dumbbell
bar
entering
victim
home
see
belmontes
cal
sentencing
phase
trial
belmontes
introduced
mitigating
evidence
show
inter
alia
make
positive
contributions
society
structured
prison
environment
respondent
testified
previous
term
california
youth
authority
cya
behaved
constructive
way
working
way
number
two
position
fire
crew
cya
fire
camp
incarcerated
app
time
embraced
christianity
entered
christian
sponsorship
program
admitted
initially
participated
program
spend
time
away
camp
later
forming
good
relationship
married
couple
christian
sponsors
pursued
religious
life
baptized
although
religious
commitment
lapsed
upon
release
cya
testified
turn
religion
whenever
rededicate
fully
finally
answered
affirmative
asked
prepared
contribute
anyway
society
put
prison
rest
life
respondent
former
cya
chaplain
testified
sentencing
hearing
respondent
conversion
appeared
genuine
chaplain
describing
respondent
salvageable
expressed
hope
respondent
contribute
prison
ministries
given
life
sentence
assistant
chaplain
similarly
testified
based
past
experience
respondent
likely
adept
counseling
prisoners
avoid
mistakes
made
leave
prison
respondent
christian
sponsors
testified
like
son
positive
influence
son
also
indicated
participated
various
activities
church
respondent
presented
mitigating
evidence
parties
made
closing
arguments
discussing
respondent
mitigating
evidence
jury
consider
respondent
also
allowed
provide
statement
trial
judge
included
instructions
disputed
factor
language
instruction
since
amended
see
cal
jury
ii
two
earlier
cases
considered
constitutional
challenge
factor
instruction
see
brown
payton
supra
boyde
california
boyde
rejected
claim
factor
focus
circumstances
ing
gravity
crime
precluded
consideration
mitigating
evidence
unrelated
crime
evidence
defendant
background
character
proper
inquiry
explained
whether
reasonable
likelihood
jury
applied
challenged
instruction
way
prevents
consideration
constitutionally
relevant
evidence
since
defendant
boyde
opportunity
factor
argue
background
character
seriousness
crime
saw
reason
believe
reasonable
jurors
resist
view
held
society
appropriate
case
evidence
counsel
imposition
sentence
less
death
citing
penry
lynaugh
sentencing
phase
boyde
moreover
defense
presented
extensive
evidence
regarding
background
character
construing
factor
preclude
consideration
evidence
required
jurors
believe
instructions
transformed
testimony
virtual
charade
also
disregard
another
instruction
requiring
jury
evidence
received
part
trial
case
payton
evaluated
arguments
factor
barred
consideration
constitutionally
relevant
evidence
time
evidence
relating
postcrime
rehabilitation
rather
precrime
background
character
see
payton
come
boyde
direct
review
rather
federal
habeas
petition
subject
aedpa
relief
available
state
adjudication
claim
decision
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
payton
supra
quoting
although
prosecutor
payton
argued
jury
incorrectly
factor
permit
consideration
postcrime
rehabilitation
evidence
concluded
california
reasonably
applied
boyde
finding
eighth
amendment
violation
accepting
prosecutor
reading
required
surprising
conclusion
remorse
never
serve
lessen
excuse
crime
furthermore
countering
misimpression
created
prosecution
argument
defense
payton
presented
extensive
evidence
argument
regarding
postcrime
religious
conversion
good
behavior
trial
instructed
jury
consider
evidence
admitted
part
trial
case
except
may
hereafter
instructed
prosecution
devoted
substantial
attention
discounting
postcrime
evidence
importance
compared
aggravating
factors
hence
state
payton
reasonably
concluded
boyde
reasonable
likelihood
jury
understood
instruction
preclude
consideration
postcrime
mitigation
evidence
heard
iii
directed
boyde
inquire
whether
reasonable
likelihood
jury
applied
challenged
instruction
way
prevents
consideration
constitutionally
relevant
evidence
appeals
distinguished
payton
ground
see
mistaken
however
find
reasonable
probability
jury
consider
respondent
future
potential
appeals
erred
adopting
narrow
conclude
unrealistic
interpretation
factor
naturally
read
appeals
reasoned
instruction
allows
jury
consider
evidence
bears
upon
commission
crime
defendant
excuses
mitigates
culpability
offense
boyde
payton
explain
however
interpretation
confined
instruction
limit
jury
consideration
circumstance
crime
extenuates
gravity
crime
jury
directed
consider
circumstance
might
excuse
crime
boyde
supra
see
also
payton
supra
precrime
background
character
boyde
postcrime
rehabilitation
payton
may
extenuat
gravity
crime
may
likelihood
future
good
conduct
count
circumstance
tending
make
defendant
less
deserving
death
penalty
cf
skipper
plurality
opinion
appeals
failed
heed
full
import
payton
holding
holding
significance
even
aedpa
inapplicable
payton
indicated
reading
factor
preclude
consideration
postcrime
evidence
require
surprising
conclusion
remorse
never
serve
lessen
excuse
crime
counterintuitive
defendant
capacity
redeem
good
works
extenuate
offense
render
less
deserving
death
sentence
event
since
respondent
sought
extrapolate
future
behavior
precrime
conduct
mitigation
theory
analogous
evidence
examined
boyde
held
fall
within
factor
purview
see
noting
inquiry
independent
assessment
personal
culpability
interpretation
factor
one
consistent
evidence
presented
jury
parties
closing
arguments
instructions
provided
trial
discussed
turn
appeals
recognized
evidence
central
mitigation
case
presented
defense
see
indeed
although
defense
also
adduced
evidence
troubled
upbringing
respondent
testified
use
difficult
life
crutch
say
situation
right
app
given
assertion
considering
extensive
evidence
presented
sentencing
evidence
including
testimony
two
prison
chaplains
respondent
church
sponsors
respondent
jurors
disregarded
respondent
future
potential
drew
unlikely
inference
instructions
transformed
testimony
virtual
charade
boyde
supra
quoting
brown
improbable
jurors
believed
parties
engaging
exercise
futility
respondent
presented
counsel
later
discussed
mitigating
evidence
open
arguments
prosecution
defense
assumed
evidence
relevant
prosecutor
initially
discussed
various
factors
guide
jury
referred
factor
catchall
app
discussed
respondent
religious
experience
detail
respect
whether
experience
fit
within
factor
indicated
sure
really
fits
sure
really
fits
think
appears
proper
subject
consideration
seemingly
contradictory
statements
explained
prosecutor
following
comments
prosecutor
suggested
quite
understandably
record
respondent
religious
evidence
weak
stated
know
first
secret
evidence
upon
defendant
religious
experience
rests
somewhat
shaky
ibid
also
opined
experience
taken
grain
salt
jury
realized
prosecutor
suggested
respondent
religious
experience
fit
within
factor
discussing
persuasiveness
evidence
jury
ability
consider
thought
religion
proper
subject
consideration
prosecutor
discussed
jury
weigh
respondent
religious
awakening
suppose
say
appropriate
fashion
defendant
may
value
community
later
recall
people
talking
opportunity
work
prisoners
prison
think
value
community
something
weigh
something
hand
fact
someone
religion
opposed
someone
grounds
either
giving
withholding
life
mean
let
turn
around
look
side
coin
suppose
someone
said
belong
church
talk
minister
man
deserve
die
merely
says
religion
deserve
penalty
life
think
influencing
factor
respect
think
law
contemplates
think
right
remarks
confirmed
jury
analyze
respondent
future
potential
future
value
community
ibid
respondent
wanted
prosecutor
commented
law
contemplate
jury
consideration
respondent
religious
conversion
respondent
argue
jury
consider
mere
fact
discovered
religion
rather
manifested
arguments
appeal
respondent
wanted
use
religious
evidence
demonstrate
future
value
community
illustrate
past
religious
awakening
nothing
prosecutor
said
convinced
jury
forbidden
even
considering
respondent
religious
conversion
though
surely
jury
discount
nothing
prosecutor
said
led
jury
think
consider
respondent
future
potential
especially
since
indicated
exactly
jury
weigh
deliberation
ibid
prosecutor
concluded
arguments
trial
judge
allowed
respondent
speak
behalf
respondent
showing
remorse
suggested
life
imprisonment
offered
opportunity
achieve
goals
try
better
also
stated
really
like
life
try
improve
respondent
personal
pleas
consistent
trial
jury
assess
future
prospects
determining
sentence
impose
defense
counsel
closing
arguments
confirm
analysis
sure
commenting
mitigating
evidence
initially
indicated
going
insult
telling
think
mitigating
evidence
excuses
way
happened
reason
asked
people
come
read
context
defense
counsel
remarks
imply
jury
ignore
mitigating
evidence
rather
conforming
dichotomy
within
factor
remarks
merely
distinguished
legal
excuse
extenuating
circumstance
cf
cal
penal
code
ann
ny
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
defense
counsel
fact
want
jury
take
account
respondent
future
potential
became
manifest
near
end
argument
suggested
people
came
told
respondent
provided
jury
game
plan
respondent
life
app
continued
suggesting
tip
iceberg
knows
years
sorts
things
fits
system
learns
set
goals
contribute
something
whatever
way
ibid
left
jury
believing
contemplate
respondent
potential
instructions
trial
make
quite
implausible
jury
deem
foreclosed
considering
respondent
full
case
mitigation
enumerating
specific
factors
consideration
factors
including
circumstances
crime
defendant
age
presence
absence
prior
felony
conviction
well
factor
catchall
judge
told
jury
determining
penalty
imposed
defendant
shall
consider
evidence
received
part
trial
case
except
may
hereafter
instructed
listing
factors
indicated
heard
evidence
heard
considered
arguments
counsel
shall
consider
take
account
guided
applicable
factors
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
upon
instructed
conclude
aggravating
circumstances
outweigh
mitigating
circumstances
shall
impose
sentence
death
however
determine
mitigating
circumstances
outweigh
aggravating
circumstances
shall
impose
sentence
confinement
state
prison
life
without
possibility
parole
judge
gave
supplemental
instruction
regarding
aggravating
mitigating
factors
previously
read
list
aggravating
circumstances
law
permits
consider
find
established
evidence
aggravating
circumstances
may
consider
allowed
take
account
facts
circumstances
basis
deciding
death
penalty
appropriate
punishment
case
however
mitigating
circumstances
read
consideration
given
merely
examples
factors
may
take
account
reasons
deciding
impose
death
penalty
death
sentence
upon
belmontes
pay
careful
attention
factors
one
standing
alone
may
support
decision
death
appropriate
punishment
case
given
evidence
arguments
presented
jury
instructions
eliminate
reasonable
likelihood
juror
consider
respondent
future
prospects
beyond
bounds
proper
consideration
judge
told
jury
consider
evidence
evidence
included
respondent
mitigation
case
judge
end
broad
command
appraise
evidence
qualifier
except
may
hereafter
instructed
later
instruct
jury
disregard
respondent
future
potential
prison
jury
fairly
read
limitation
instruction
apply
respondent
central
mitigation
theory
contrast
response
juror
question
trial
judge
specifically
instructed
jury
consider
whether
respondent
receive
psychiatric
treatment
prison
sharp
contrast
instruction
aggravation
enumerated
factors
considered
instruction
mitigation
listed
factors
merely
examples
made
clear
jury
take
broad
view
mitigating
evidence
coming
back
back
instructions
conveyed
message
jury
weigh
finite
aggravators
potentially
infinite
mitigators
trial
judge
told
jury
pay
careful
attention
listed
mitigating
factors
moreover
compel
jury
give
sole
consideration
case
jury
fail
take
judge
word
judge
advise
jury
pay
exclusive
attention
listed
mitigating
circumstances
told
jury
circumstances
simply
examples
implausible
jury
supposed
past
deeds
pointing
constructive
future
extenuat
gravity
crime
required
factor
much
less
evidence
considered
boyde
concludes
jury
deliberations
commonsense
understanding
instructions
light
taken
place
trial
likely
prevail
technical
hairsplitting
far
encouraging
jury
ignore
defense
central
evidence
instructions
supported
giving
due
weight
concluding
otherwise
appeals
cited
queries
jurors
evidence
confusion
although
jury
initial
question
record
appeared
ask
judge
consequences
failing
reach
unanimous
verdict
cf
response
judge
reread
portions
instructions
stated
jurors
must
agree
app
judge
sent
jury
back
deliberation
following
exchange
took
place
juror
hern
statement
aggravation
mitigation
circumstances
listing
listing
yes
juror
hern
certain
factors
decide
one
balance
sheet
right
balancing
process
meyer
juror
meyer
specific
question
situation
one
juror
meyer
situation
exactly
make
decision
discharge
juror
hailstone
ask
question
know
permissible
possible
psychiatric
treatment
time
something
consider
making
decision
appeals
decided
juror
hern
questions
indicated
thought
incorrectly
listed
mitigating
factors
table
error
appeals
view
prompted
clarifying
instruction
confirming
mitigating
evidence
relevant
appeals
supposed
response
juror
hailstone
question
compounded
problem
since
psychiatric
treatment
presumably
necessary
aid
future
rehabilitation
appeals
analysis
flawed
begin
attributing
juror
hern
dilemma
scope
mitigation
one
way
interpret
questions
california
observed
direct
review
necessarily
correct
one
see
belmontes
cal
least
likely
juror
simply
asking
clarification
california
overall
balancing
process
requires
juries
consider
balance
enumerated
factors
age
criminal
history
labeled
neither
mitigating
aggravating
juror
hern
surmised
sought
clarify
jury
must
determine
side
balance
listed
factor
falls
see
cal
penal
code
ann
providing
determining
penalty
trier
fact
shall
take
account
relevant
listed
factors
see
generally
tuilaepa
california
noting
sentencing
factors
instruct
sentencer
weigh
facts
finds
deciding
upon
ultimate
sentence
even
assuming
appeals
correctly
interpreted
juror
hern
questions
conclusion
juror
likely
ignored
evidence
presupposes
purports
establish
namely
evidence
fall
within
factor
discussed
earlier
nothing
barred
jury
viewing
respondent
future
prospects
extenuat
ing
gravity
crime
nothing
barred
considering
evidence
rubric
listing
juror
hailstone
question
inquiry
shows
anything
jurors
considering
respondent
potential
trial
response
far
implying
broad
prohibition
inferences
readily
explicable
absence
evidence
record
regarding
psychiatric
care
view
analysis
disposition
case
unnecessary
address
argument
reversing
appeals
based
holding
johnson
texas
subject
raised
judge
separate
opinion
appeals
see
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
iv
case
boyde
payton
jury
heard
mitigating
evidence
trial
directed
jury
consider
evidence
presented
parties
addressed
mitigating
evidence
closing
arguments
cases
establish
general
rule
jury
circumstances
reasonably
likely
believe
barred
considering
defense
evidence
factor
extenuat
ing
gravity
crime
factor
instruction
consistent
constitutional
right
present
mitigating
evidence
capital
sentencing
proceedings
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
robert
ayers
acting
warden
tioner
fernando
belmontes
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
november
justice
scalia
justice
thomas
joins
concurring
adhere
view
limiting
jury
discretion
consider
mitigating
evidence
violate
eighth
amendment
see
walton
arizona
scalia
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
even
accepting
jurisprudence
contrary
however
arguably
easy
case
given
reiteration
johnson
texas
jury
need
able
consider
manner
defendant
relevant
mitigating
evidence
need
able
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
every
conceivable
manner
evidence
might
relevant
since
petitioner
relied
johnson
judge
see
belmontes
brown
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
content
join
full
opinion
correctly
applies
boyde
california
robert
ayers
acting
warden
tioner
fernando
belmontes
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
november
justice
stevens
justice
souter
justice
ginsburg
justice
breyer
join
dissenting
lockett
ohio
set
aside
ohio
death
penalty
statute
unconstitutional
unduly
restricted
mitigating
evidence
jury
consider
deciding
whether
impose
death
penalty
opinion
announcing
judgment
chief
justice
burger
wrote
perfect
procedure
deciding
cases
governmental
authority
used
impose
death
statute
prevents
sentencer
capital
cases
giving
independent
mitigating
weight
aspects
defendant
character
record
circumstances
offense
proffered
mitigation
creates
risk
death
penalty
imposed
spite
factors
may
call
less
severe
penalty
choice
life
death
risk
unacceptable
incompatible
commands
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
plurality
opinion
respondent
fernando
belmontes
sentenced
death
scant
four
years
lockett
see
people
belmontes
cal
yet
time
sentencing
remained
significant
residual
confusion
whether
constitution
obligated
permit
juries
consider
evidence
extenuating
defendant
culpability
crime
might
nevertheless
call
sentence
less
death
cf
people
easley
cal
noting
arguments
sides
california
death
penalty
statute
effect
quite
plainly
rested
assumption
california
preclude
consideration
evidence
statute
commanded
jury
shall
impose
death
sentence
aggravating
circumstances
outweigh
mitigating
circumstances
limited
jury
inquiry
discrete
categories
evidence
see
cal
penal
code
west
factors
relating
defendant
age
prior
criminal
record
every
one
categories
relate
severity
crime
defendant
eleventh
factor
authorized
consideration
ny
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
factor
restrictive
language
sent
unmistakable
message
california
juries
properly
give
mitigating
weight
evidence
extenuate
severity
crime
year
respondent
sentencing
california
evinced
considerable
discomfort
factor
people
easley
discussing
possible
unconstitutionality
penalty
phase
instructions
inserted
critical
effectively
amending
factor
expanding
evidence
california
jury
properly
consider
deciding
whether
impose
death
sentence
order
avoid
potential
misunderstanding
future
trial
courts
instructing
factor
inform
jury
may
consider
mitigating
factor
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
defendant
character
record
defendant
proffers
basis
sentence
less
death
cal
emphasis
added
although
easley
came
late
help
respondent
california
evident
concern
capital
juries
must
permitted
consider
evidence
beyond
extenuates
gravity
crime
proved
prescient
skipper
south
carolina
decided
two
years
california
affirmed
respondent
conviction
therefore
fully
applicable
see
griffith
kentucky
expressly
rejected
argument
presented
justice
powell
separate
opinion
retained
authority
determine
mitigating
evidence
relevant
long
foreclose
consideration
factors
may
tend
reduce
defendant
culpability
crime
see
skipper
opinion
concurring
judgment
apart
traditional
sentencing
factors
vidence
concerning
degree
defendant
participation
crime
age
emotional
history
justice
powell
held
properly
exclude
evidence
capital
sentencing
proceeding
majority
however
took
expansive
view
although
recognized
probative
force
skipper
excluded
evidence
relate
specifically
petitioner
culpability
crime
committed
question
inferences
sense
might
serve
basis
sentence
less
death
quoting
lockett
emphasis
added
skipper
law
clear
capital
jury
must
allowed
consider
broader
category
mitigating
evidence
normally
relevant
noncapital
proceedings
respondent
sentenced
however
easley
rewrote
factor
skipper
resolved
confusion
whether
constitutional
latitude
restrict
evidence
tend
reduce
defendant
culpability
crime
powell
concurring
judgment
following
review
record
underscore
confusion
pervaded
every
aspect
respondent
sentencing
hearing
addled
trial
judge
prosecutor
defense
counsel
inevitably
jurors
sentencing
hearing
prosecution
put
case
consisted
mainly
evidence
respondent
previous
conduct
see
belmontes
cal
respondent
countered
testimony
grandfather
mother
testimony
focused
almost
entirely
respondent
background
father
drank
excess
savagely
beat
wife
parents
divorced
years
old
mother
remarried
divorced
respondent
years
old
point
respondent
became
difficult
control
sent
california
youth
authority
youth
authority
release
respondent
live
mother
although
kept
touch
telephone
close
sister
see
generally
app
next
jury
heard
testimony
robert
martinez
wife
darlene
testified
close
friends
respondent
admitted
seen
released
youth
authority
robert
testified
respondent
best
man
wedding
prior
wedding
two
spend
lot
time
together
working
martinez
car
drinking
beer
smoking
marijuana
focus
darlene
testimony
christian
respondent
visited
darlene
husband
release
youth
authority
told
also
christian
respondent
testified
behalf
asked
childhood
respondent
answered
ca
use
crutch
say
situation
right
went
describe
relationships
father
grandfather
relate
experience
youth
authority
respondent
testified
youth
authority
became
involved
christian
program
developed
relationship
sponsors
program
beverly
fred
haro
upon
release
however
respondent
started
problems
abandoned
religious
commitment
something
yet
regained
fully
time
sentencing
hearing
respondent
described
life
prison
stated
given
life
sentence
attempt
make
positive
contribution
society
prosecutor
questions
focused
sincerity
respondent
religious
commitment
following
day
respondent
presented
testimony
reverend
dale
barrett
miller
ministers
worked
youth
authority
location
respondent
held
reverend
barrett
described
youth
authority
program
respondent
matched
haros
testified
respondent
involvement
church
program
interactions
respondent
led
believe
salvageable
miller
similarly
testified
respondent
participation
program
belief
respondent
adept
speaking
prisoners
accepting
religion
see
also
testifying
respondent
efinitely
used
prison
system
sort
activity
finally
jury
heard
testimony
respondent
sponsors
program
fred
beverly
haro
haros
described
meeting
respondent
experiences
see
generally
also
testified
close
grown
respondent
respondent
embrace
religion
taken
whole
sentencing
testimony
supports
three
conclusions
first
excepting
questions
concerning
sincerity
respondent
religious
convictions
significant
dispute
credibility
witnesses
second
little
testimony
extenuated
severity
respondent
crime
third
testimony
afforded
jury
principled
basis
imposing
sentence
death
ii
prosecutor
began
closing
argument
penalty
phase
describing
th
listing
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
instructing
jury
must
weigh
one
app
observed
proper
place
sympathy
passion
prosecutor
emphasized
jury
consider
kind
sympathy
instruction
tells
consider
sympathy
naturally
arises
properly
arises
factors
aggravation
mitigation
emphasis
added
repeated
jury
duty
simpl
weig
certain
factors
judge
tell
may
take
account
went
listed
factors
one
one
carefully
discussing
evidence
supported
factor
prosecutor
turned
factor
directly
addressed
theory
defendant
religious
experience
within
catchall
relates
defendant
time
committed
crime
extenuates
gravity
crime
prosecutor
expressed
doubt
jury
consider
evidence
stating
sure
really
fits
sure
really
fits
think
appears
proper
subject
consideration
ibid
discussing
evidence
supporting
respondent
religious
experience
prosecutor
questioned
religious
awakening
basis
determining
penalty
really
issue
much
weigh
weigh
one
side
ultimately
prosecutor
concluded
suppose
say
appropriate
fashion
defendant
may
value
community
later
think
value
community
something
weigh
something
ibid
immediately
thereafter
prosecutor
told
jury
hand
fact
someone
religion
opposed
someone
grounds
either
giving
withholding
life
says
religion
deserve
penalty
life
think
influencing
factor
respect
think
law
contemplates
think
right
ibid
emphasis
added
conclusion
prosecutor
described
circumstances
crime
asserted
dreadful
crime
requires
dreadful
penalty
following
prosecutor
closing
argument
trial
judge
allowed
respondent
address
jury
directly
respondent
stated
use
childhood
crutch
explain
mistakes
said
christianity
used
crutch
respondent
asked
keep
life
explaining
understood
pay
victim
death
wanted
opportunity
try
improve
future
respondent
attorney
john
schick
addressed
jury
made
effort
persuade
jurors
mitigating
evidence
somehow
extenuated
severity
crime
contrary
said
going
insult
telling
think
mitigating
evidence
excuses
way
happened
reason
asked
people
come
instead
argued
respondent
might
able
make
positive
contribution
prison
environment
spoke
way
respondent
improved
met
beverly
fred
haro
way
respondent
religion
shaped
observing
religion
plays
vital
function
anybody
life
ibid
schick
took
care
emphasize
religion
excuse
murder
rather
point
mitigating
evidence
let
jury
know
something
man
admitted
respondent
make
outside
recognized
respondent
needed
punished
asked
jury
impose
life
prison
punishment
meaning
teeth
critically
schick
contended
life
prison
appropriate
sentence
respondent
given
chance
contribute
something
whatever
way
sum
counsel
agreed
none
mitigating
evidence
detract
gravity
crime
defense
counsel
even
insisted
insult
jury
suggest
mitigating
evidence
excuses
way
happened
iii
conference
jury
instructions
two
counsel
trial
judge
plainly
indicated
believed
factor
circumscribed
mitigating
evidence
jury
consider
judge
lifted
principal
jury
instructions
verbatim
traditional
sentencing
factors
set
forth
statute
app
refused
defense
counsel
request
give
jury
separate
list
potential
mitigating
factors
among
requested
two
specifically
instructed
jury
consider
respondent
ability
perform
constructive
work
prison
live
confinement
without
acts
violence
see
brief
respondent
instructions
entirely
proper
indeed
probably
mandated
holding
skipper
prosecutor
benefit
skipper
argued
judge
none
proposed
mitigating
instructions
relates
circumstances
concerning
crime
ca
conceal
fact
think
determinative
factor
case
app
agreeing
judge
refused
include
mitigating
instructions
making
astonishing
statement
instructions
already
seem
little
factors
mitigation
rather
aggravation
ibid
particular
importance
judge
modified
defense
counsel
request
jury
told
instructions
contain
exhaustive
list
mitigating
factors
give
instruction
ante
refused
include
following
requested
reference
nonstatutory
factors
may
also
consider
circumstances
relating
case
defendant
belmontes
reasons
imposing
death
sentence
brief
respondent
contra
app
judge
thus
expressly
declined
invite
jury
weigh
potentially
infinite
mitigators
contrary
assumption
today
see
ante
accurate
summary
rulings
jury
weigh
nonstatutory
circumstances
extenuated
severity
respondent
offense
iv
next
morning
trial
judge
gave
jurors
instructions
opened
unyielding
admonition
ou
must
accept
follow
rules
law
state
app
explained
required
read
instructions
aloud
even
though
written
copy
available
deliberations
ibid
reading
set
boilerplate
instructions
judge
turned
subject
determining
penalty
imposed
defendant
told
jury
consider
evidence
except
may
hereafter
instructed
ibid
emphasis
added
stated
shall
consider
take
account
guided
following
factors
applicable
proceeded
repeat
verbatim
factors
set
forth
statute
except
reference
age
defendant
time
crime
every
one
factors
related
severity
crime
see
supra
last
factor
instruction
focused
jury
attention
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
ibid
factor
permitted
jury
consider
defendant
character
record
defendant
proffers
basis
sentence
less
death
easley
cal
citing
lockett
emphasizing
importance
listing
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
judge
next
instructed
jury
shall
consider
take
account
guided
applicable
factors
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
upon
instructed
app
emphasis
added
words
reaching
decision
jury
consider
applicable
factors
seven
factors
judge
finished
reading
others
points
ante
judge
tell
jury
mitigating
circumstances
read
consideration
given
merely
examples
factors
may
take
account
reasons
deciding
impose
death
sentence
app
immediately
afterwards
instructed
jury
pay
careful
attention
factors
one
standing
alone
may
support
decision
death
appropriate
punishment
case
ibid
emphasis
added
since
none
factors
save
age
defendant
encompassed
mitigating
circumstance
unrelated
severity
crime
natural
reading
instruction
mitigating
factor
lessens
severity
offense
may
support
sentence
death
view
mitigating
circumstance
simply
irrelevant
prosecutor
words
simple
weighing
jury
tasked
performing
questions
asked
least
six
different
jurors
almost
two
full
days
deliberation
gave
judge
ample
opportunity
clarify
testimony
offered
behalf
respondent
credited
jury
provided
permissible
basis
imposing
sentence
death
far
eliminating
obvious
confusion
responses
cemented
impression
jurors
lone
duty
weigh
specified
limited
statutory
factors
lunch
break
judge
reconvened
jury
answer
question
appear
record
response
judge
merely
reread
instructions
telling
jury
must
agree
shall
consider
take
account
guided
applicable
factors
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
upon
instructed
app
emphasis
added
factors
traditional
sentencing
factors
none
permitted
consideration
mitigating
evidence
judge
response
functional
equivalent
yet
another
admonition
disregard
respondent
evidence
colloquy
judge
four
different
jurors
hailstone
wilson
norton
huckabay
likelihood
reaching
unanimous
jurors
asked
judge
series
questions
reflecting
concern
whether
proper
consider
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
specifically
listed
instructions
juror
hern
statement
aggravation
mitigation
circumstances
listing
listing
yes
juror
hern
certain
factors
decide
one
balance
sheet
right
balancing
process
meyer
juror
meyer
specific
question
situation
one
juror
meyer
situation
exactly
make
decision
discharge
juror
hailstone
ask
question
know
permissible
possible
psychiatric
treatment
time
something
consider
making
decision
app
judge
responses
strongly
suggest
listing
listed
statutory
factors
jury
properly
consider
balanc
ing
sheet
see
supra
difficult
impossible
see
evidence
relating
future
conduct
even
arguably
extenuate
gravity
crime
factor
none
listed
factors
gave
jury
chance
consider
whether
respondent
might
redeem
prison
cf
brown
payton
souter
dissenting
stretch
say
seriousness
crime
affected
defendant
subsequent
experience
rather
inviting
review
mitigating
factors
include
consideration
defendant
possible
future
behavior
prison
judge
answers
emphasized
constraints
decision
jurors
arguments
counsel
actual
instructions
jury
colloquy
support
conclusion
jurors
understood
task
run
listed
statutory
factors
weigh
determine
whether
respondent
sentenced
death
little
respondent
evidence
however
even
arguably
extenuate
gravity
crime
judgment
reason
much
likely
jury
believed
law
forbade
giving
evidence
weight
appeals
therefore
correctly
set
aside
respondent
death
sentence
see
boyde
california
plurality
opinion
requiring
defendant
show
reasonable
likelihood
jury
applied
challenged
instruction
way
prevents
consideration
constitutionally
relevant
evidence
vi
nothing
opinion
boyde
upsets
view
respondent
death
sentence
stand
dissent
four
justices
boyde
adopted
new
legal
standard
reviewing
jury
instructions
claimed
restrict
impermissibly
jury
consideration
relevant
evidence
approved
blatantly
atextual
interpretation
unadorned
factor
instruction
applying
new
standard
dubious
reading
factor
held
reasonable
likelihood
boyde
jurors
interpreted
trial
instructions
prevent
consideration
mitigating
evidence
background
character
rejected
boyde
argument
factor
made
impossible
jury
consider
testimony
boyde
prize
dance
choreography
prison
boyde
argued
evidence
relating
whether
lead
useful
life
behind
bars
hold
suggest
factor
allowed
consideration
evidence
instead
found
evidence
dance
choreography
talents
presented
part
overall
strategy
portray
less
culpable
defendants
due
disadvantaged
background
character
strengths
ibid
emphasis
added
therefore
fell
within
ambit
factor
thus
although
boyde
opinion
state
explicitly
assumes
factor
instruction
permit
jury
consider
evidence
postcrime
good
prison
behavior
show
defendant
pose
danger
prison
community
sentenced
life
imprisonment
rather
death
ibid
see
also
skipper
recognizing
inferences
regarding
defendant
probable
future
conduct
sentenced
life
prison
relate
specifically
defendant
culpability
crime
committed
payton
souter
dissenting
boyde
purport
hold
factor
naturally
called
consideration
postcrime
changes
fundamental
views
respondent
contends
reasonable
likelihood
judge
instructions
prevented
jury
considering
precrime
mitigation
evidence
regarding
possibility
lead
constructive
life
prison
setting
opinion
boyde
fail
support
improbable
argument
respondent
mitigating
evidence
falls
within
factor
purview
reasoning
entirely
consistent
appeals
contrary
conclusion
similarly
recent
decision
payton
little
bearing
payton
granted
certiorari
decide
whether
ninth
circuit
decision
affirming
district
grant
habeas
relief
contrary
limits
federal
habeas
review
imposed
concluding
relied
heavily
deferential
standard
habeas
review
established
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
aedpa
stat
see
justice
breyer
specifically
stated
joined
majority
case
congress
instruction
defer
reasonable
conclusions
judges
makes
critical
difference
concurring
opinion
explaining
california
state
judge
likely
hold
payton
proceedings
violated
eighth
amendment
might
well
reasonable
likelihood
payton
jury
interpreted
factor
way
prevented
considering
constitutionally
relevant
mitigating
evidence
namely
evidence
postcrime
religious
conversion
ibid
citation
alteration
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
fact
payton
case
deference
aedpa
rather
proper
understanding
scope
factor
cause
enough
conclude
mandate
specific
outcome
indeed
given
respondent
trial
occurred
year
involved
jury
instructions
payton
compare
ou
shall
consider
evidence
received
part
trial
case
except
may
hereafter
souter
dissenting
app
aedpa
apply
respondent
case
persuasive
reasons
concluding
justice
souter
powerful
reasoning
payton
rather
majority
deferential
review
california
opinion
guide
decision
dissenting
opinion
justice
souter
pointed
payton
trial
occurred
california
directed
trial
judges
supplement
factor
instruction
legislature
amended
see
without
changes
correctly
concluded
claim
factor
called
consideration
defendant
personal
development
wake
crime
simply
odds
common
attitudes
english
language
moreover
payton
deal
record
discloses
actual
confusion
among
jurors
record
see
supra
involve
defense
attorney
bolstering
prosecutor
claim
factor
allow
jury
consider
respondent
religious
conversion
refused
insult
jury
telling
think
mitigating
evidence
excuses
way
happened
app
therefore
even
ignoring
significantly
different
procedural
posture
payton
like
boyde
falls
far
short
compelling
result
reaches
today
vii
instead
accepting
lay
jurors
almost
certainly
give
words
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
ordinary
meaning
insists
disregarded
instructions
considered
evidence
nothing
whatsoever
crime
conclusion
seems
rest
assumption
jury
uncanny
ability
predict
future
opinions
interpret
factor
mean
something
neither
judge
lawyers
thought
meant
surely
natural
inference
jury
followed
instructions
see
greer
miller
plurality
opinion
describing
presumption
juries
follow
instructions
highly
technical
parsing
factor
depends
linguistic
distinctions
occur
trained
lawyers
see
ante
calling
attention
dichotomy
within
factor
legal
excuse
extenuating
circumstance
even
lawyers
confused
prosecutor
payton
believed
factor
oes
permit
consideration
postcrime
rehabilitation
evidence
ante
majority
blithely
characterizes
view
incorrec
natural
reading
factor
one
jurors
likely
accept
similarly
counsel
state
california
expressed
confusion
oral
argument
whether
constitutional
trial
judge
instruct
jury
consider
mitigating
evidence
unless
extenuated
gravity
crime
see
tr
oral
arg
retreating
statement
appear
constitutional
seriously
insist
group
laypersons
command
constitutional
law
anticipating
skipper
took
account
evidence
outside
ambit
jury
instructions
also
apparently
believes
prosecutor
case
suggested
factor
meant
exactly
said
supra
jury
taken
merely
comment
respondent
credibility
ante
rests
clear
misreading
record
although
prosecutor
argue
respondent
lacked
sincere
religious
convictions
also
suggested
quite
powerfully
law
permit
jury
consider
convictions
however
sincerely
held
see
app
think
law
contemplates
think
right
emphasis
added
support
surprising
inherently
contradictory
view
prosecutor
commented
law
contemplate
jury
consideration
respondent
religious
conversion
ante
othing
prosecutor
said
convinced
jury
forbidden
even
considering
respondent
religious
conversion
ibid
emphasis
added
admittedly
points
distinction
limiting
jury
consideration
circumstances
crime
extenuate
severity
limiting
consideration
circumstance
might
excuse
crime
see
ante
highly
unlikely
however
jurors
note
subtle
distinction
even
unlikely
consider
significant
interpretations
phrase
focus
jury
attention
crime
neither
includes
evidence
issue
skipper
lmost
definition
neither
excuses
defendant
crime
reduces
responsibility
commission
powell
concurring
judgment
read
however
generously
factor
limitation
remains
unconstitutional
makes
similarly
unpersuasive
argument
based
dubious
premise
juror
understand
remorse
species
postcrime
evidence
serves
lessen
excuse
crime
even
true
follow
jurors
somehow
divine
respondent
evidence
capacity
redeem
extenuate
offense
render
less
deserving
death
sentence
ante
viii
unless
jurors
imposed
death
sentence
somehow
guessed
breadth
rule
first
announced
lockett
sentence
product
unconstitutional
proceeding
ironically
chief
justice
burger
wrote
plurality
opinion
lockett
justice
powell
joined
understood
lockett
rule
extend
evidence
lessens
defendant
culpability
crime
skipper
powell
joined
burger
rehnquist
concurring
judgment
given
authors
lockett
disagreed
scope
sanguine
lay
members
jury
somehow
knew
notwithstanding
clear
jury
instructions
testimony
presented
sentencing
phase
respondent
trial
part
simple
weighing
jury
supposed
undertake
trial
judge
told
jurors
consider
evidence
except
may
hereinafter
instructed
app
directed
limit
consideration
traditional
sentencing
factors
set
forth
statute
prosecutor
told
jurors
think
law
contemplates
respondent
religion
lessened
seriousness
respondent
offense
reinforced
impression
jury
confine
deliberations
listing
defense
counsel
agreed
prosecutor
saying
going
insult
telling
think
mitigating
evidence
excuses
way
happened
surely
least
jurors
doubted
propriety
speculating
respondent
future
conduct
prison
basis
imposing
sentence
less
death
today
heaps
speculation
speculation
reach
strange
conclusion
step
case
law
properly
instructed
jury
disregarded
instructions
considered
evidence
fell
outside
narrow
confines
factor
holding
contrary
insists
reduce
two
days
sentencing
testimony
virtual
charade
ante
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
concluding
necessarily
finds
judge
instructions
charade
jury
paid
heed
simply
believe
jurors
took
upon
consider
testimony
told
forbidden
considering
view
must
least
confused
whether
evidence
appropriately
considered
confusion
created
risk
error
sufficient
warrant
relief
man
spent
half
life
death
row
cf
lackey
texas
stevens
respecting
denial
certiorari
incremental
value
california
carrying
death
sentence
late
date
far
outweighed
interest
maintaining
confidence
fairness
proceeding
results
state
decision
take
life
one
citizens
see
gardner
florida
plurality
opinion
accordingly
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
categories
circumstances
crime
defendant
convicted
present
proceeding
existence
special
circumstances
found
true
presence
absence
criminal
activity
defendant
involved
use
attempted
use
force
violence
express
implied
threat
use
force
violence
presence
absence
prior
felony
conviction
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
defect
affects
intoxication
age
defendant
time
crime
whether
defendant
accomplice
offense
participation
commission
offense
relatively
minor
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
cal
penal
code
ann
west
version
also
provided
fter
heard
received
evidence
trier
fact
shall
consider
take
account
guided
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
referred
section
shall
determine
whether
penalty
shall
death
confinement
state
prison
term
life
without
possibility
parole
california
legislature
also
responded
confusion
amending
factor
include
sympathetic
aspect
defendant
character
record
defendant
offers
basis
sentence
less
death
whether
related
offense
trial
cal
jury
brackets
omitted
amendment
confirms
view
category
evidence
may
provide
basis
sentence
death
much
broader
category
described
factor
juror
hailstone
ca
judge
happens
ca
tell
juror
wilson
wanted
know
okay
know
happen
ca
tell
happen
schick
maybe
inquire
whether
jury
reach
verdict
think
norton
able
make
decision
matter
juror
hailstone
way
going
juror
norton
tough
yes
think
allow
continue
discuss
matter
go
instructions
one
another
possibility
making
decision
juror
norton
believe
possibility
juror
huckabay
need
time
think
think
need
time
app
skipper
south
carolina
plurality
opinion
recognized
defendant
potential
good
behavior
future
relate
culpability
crime
committed
even
concurrence
agreed
almost
definition
reasoned
prisoner
good
behavior
neither
excuses
defendant
crime
reduces
responsibility
commission
powell
concurring
judgment
juror
hailstone
asked
judge
particular
piece
evidence
possibility
respondent
get
psychiatric
treatment
prison
judge
told
jury
consider
evidence
making
decision
judge
answer
legally
correct
lent
support
conclusion
respondent
future
conduct
structured
prison
environment
relevant
fall
within
listed
factors
response
majority
suggestion
case
may
consistent
johnson
texas
ante
note
johnson
addressed
different
question
namely
whether
jury
considering
future
dangerousness
give
adequate
weight
capital
defendant
youth
whatever
connection
may
exist
defendant
youth
future
dangerousness
connection
whatsoever
respondent
evidence
capable
redemption
circumstance
extenuates
gravity
crime
cal
penal
code
west