california
ramos
argued
february
decided
july
guilt
phase
respondent
california
trial
jury
returned
verdict
guilt
count
murder
punishable
california
law
death
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
alleged
special
circumstance
commission
murder
robbery
found
true
jury
guilt
phase
addition
requiring
jury
instructions
separate
penalty
phase
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
california
law
requires
trial
judge
inform
jury
sentence
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
may
commuted
governor
sentence
includes
possibility
parole
briggs
instruction
penalty
phase
respondent
trial
judge
instructions
included
briggs
instruction
jury
returned
verdict
death
california
affirmed
respondent
conviction
reversed
death
penalty
concluding
briggs
instruction
violated
federal
constitution
remanded
case
new
penalty
phase
held
federal
constitution
prohibit
instruction
permitting
capital
sentencing
jury
consider
governor
power
commute
life
sentence
without
possibility
parole
pp
possible
commutation
life
sentence
impermissibly
inject
element
speculative
jury
consideration
bringing
jury
attention
possibility
defendant
may
returned
society
briggs
instruction
invites
jury
assess
whether
defendant
someone
whose
probable
future
behavior
makes
undesirable
permitted
return
society
thus
focusing
jury
defendant
probable
future
dangerousness
jury
consideration
factor
future
dangerousness
upheld
jurek
texas
giving
briggs
instruction
result
diminution
reliability
sentencing
decision
kind
condemned
gardner
florida
held
death
sentence
may
imposed
basis
presentence
investigation
report
containing
information
defendant
opportunity
explain
deny
briggs
instruction
gives
jury
accurate
information
defendant
counsel
aware
preclude
defendant
offering
evidence
argument
regarding
governor
power
commute
life
sentence
pp
briggs
instruction
constitutionally
infirm
asserted
ground
deflects
jury
focus
central
task
undertaking
individualized
sentencing
determination
sense
instruction
focuses
attention
defendant
future
dangerousness
jury
deliberation
individualized
also
california
sentencing
system
ensures
jury
information
regarding
individual
characteristics
defendant
offense
briggs
instruction
simply
places
jury
additional
element
considered
along
many
factors
determining
sentence
appropriate
circumstances
defendant
case
affect
jury
determination
beck
alabama
distinguished
finally
informing
jury
governor
power
commute
sentence
life
without
possibility
parole
merely
accurate
statement
potential
sentencing
alternative
corrects
misconception
conveyed
phrase
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
pp
briggs
instruction
unconstitutional
fails
inform
jury
also
governor
power
commute
death
sentence
even
assuming
arguendo
briggs
instruction
impermissible
effect
skewing
jury
toward
imposing
death
penalty
instruction
governor
power
commute
death
sentences
well
life
sentences
restore
neutrality
increase
reliability
sentencing
choice
fact
advising
jurors
death
verdict
theoretically
modifiable
thus
final
may
incline
approach
sentencing
decision
less
appreciation
gravity
choice
moral
responsibility
reposed
sentencers
thus
instruction
disclosing
governor
power
commute
death
sentence
may
operate
defendant
distinct
disadvantage
moreover
briggs
instruction
alone
impermissibly
impel
jury
toward
voting
death
sentence
information
relevant
factually
accurate
properly
jury
trial
judge
instructions
emphasize
role
factor
jury
decision
pp
conclusion
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
prohibit
instruction
regarding
governor
power
commute
life
sentence
override
judgment
state
legislatures
capital
sentencing
juries
permitted
consider
matter
free
provide
greater
protections
criminal
justice
system
federal
constitution
requires
pp
delivered
opinion
burger
white
powell
rehnquist
joined
marshall
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
joined
parts
ii
iii
iv
blackmun
joined
post
blackmun
post
stevens
post
filed
dissenting
opinions
harley
mayfield
deputy
attorney
general
california
argued
cause
petitioner
brief
george
deukmejian
attorney
general
robert
philibosian
chief
assistant
attorney
general
daniel
kremer
assistant
attorney
general
jay
bloom
deputy
attorney
general
ezra
hendon
appointment
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondent
justice
delivered
opinion
case
requires
us
consider
constitutionality
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
instructing
capital
sentencing
jury
regarding
governor
power
commute
sentence
life
without
possibility
parole
finding
constitutional
defect
instruction
reverse
decision
california
remand
proceedings
night
june
respondent
marcelino
ramos
participated
robbery
restaurant
employed
janitor
respondent
codefendant
placed
food
order
respondent
entered
restaurant
went
behind
front
counter
work
area
ostensibly
purpose
checking
work
schedule
emerged
gun
respondent
directed
two
employees
working
night
restaurant
refrigerator
ordered
face
back
wall
respondent
entered
emerged
refrigerator
several
times
inquiring
one
point
keys
restaurant
safe
entered
last
time
instructed
two
employees
kneel
floor
refrigerator
remove
hats
pray
respondent
struck
head
shot
wounding
one
killing
respondent
charged
robbery
attempted
murder
murder
defense
counsel
presented
evidence
guilt
phase
respondent
trial
jury
returned
verdict
guilt
counts
california
law
murder
punishable
death
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
alleged
special
circumstance
found
true
jury
guilt
phase
separate
penalty
phase
respondent
presented
extensive
evidence
attempt
mitigate
punishment
addition
requiring
jury
instructions
aggravating
mitigating
circumstances
california
law
requires
trial
judge
inform
jury
sentence
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
may
commuted
governor
sentence
includes
possibility
parole
penalty
phase
respondent
trial
judge
delivered
following
instruction
instructed
state
constitution
governor
empowered
grant
reprieve
pardon
commutation
sentence
following
conviction
crime
power
governor
may
future
commute
modify
sentence
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
lesser
sentence
include
possibility
parole
tr
appeal
california
affirmed
respondent
conviction
reversed
death
sentence
concluding
briggs
instruction
required
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
violated
federal
constitution
cal
found
two
constitutional
flaws
instruction
first
invites
jury
consider
factors
foreign
task
deciding
whether
defendant
live
die
according
state
instead
assuring
decision
rests
consideration
character
record
individual
offender
circumstances
particular
offense
woodson
north
carolina
instruction
focuses
jury
attention
governor
power
render
defendant
eligible
parole
jury
vote
execute
injects
entirely
speculative
element
capital
sentencing
determination
second
concluded
instruction
also
inform
jury
governor
possesses
power
commute
death
sentence
leaves
jury
mistaken
belief
way
keep
defendant
streets
condemn
death
accordingly
remanded
new
penalty
phase
granted
certiorari
reverse
remand
ii
challenging
constitutionality
briggs
instruction
respondent
presses
upon
us
two
central
arguments
advanced
california
decision
contends
capital
sentencing
jury
may
constitutionally
consider
possible
commutation
briggs
instruction
unconstitutionally
misleads
jury
selectively
informing
governor
power
commute
one
sentencing
choices
respondent
first
argument
raises
two
related
distinct
concerns
power
commutation
speculative
factor
injects
unacceptable
level
unreliability
capital
sentencing
determination
consideration
factor
deflects
jury
constitutionally
mandated
task
basing
penalty
decision
character
defendant
nature
offense
address
points
parts
infra
respondent
second
argument
part
iii
infra
turning
specific
contentions
respondent
first
argument
however
examine
general
principles
guided
pronouncements
regarding
proper
range
considerations
sentencer
capital
case
well
separate
opinions
majority
individual
justices
recognized
qualitative
difference
death
punishments
requires
correspondingly
greater
degree
scrutiny
capital
sentencing
determination
ensuring
death
penalty
meted
arbitrarily
capriciously
principal
concern
procedure
state
imposes
death
sentence
substantive
factors
state
lays
jury
basis
imposing
death
determined
defendant
falls
within
category
persons
eligible
death
penalty
gregg
georgia
companion
cases
reviewed
capital
sentencing
schemes
five
determine
whether
schemes
cured
constitutional
defects
identified
furman
georgia
gregg
joint
opinion
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
concluded
georgia
sentencing
scheme
met
concerns
furman
providing
bifurcated
proceeding
instruction
factors
considered
meaningful
appellate
review
death
sentence
satisfied
procedural
safeguards
suitably
directed
limited
jury
discretion
minimize
risk
wholly
arbitrary
capricious
action
joint
opinion
undertake
dictate
state
particular
substantive
factors
deemed
relevant
capital
sentencing
decision
indeed
joint
opinion
observed
seems
clear
problem
channeling
jury
discretion
alleviated
jury
given
guidance
regarding
factors
crime
defendant
state
representing
organized
society
deems
particularly
relevant
sentencing
decision
emphasis
added
see
also
deference
owe
decisions
state
legislatures
federal
system
enhanced
specification
punishments
concerned
peculiarly
questions
legislative
policy
erroneous
suggest
however
imposed
substantive
limitations
particular
factors
capital
sentencing
jury
may
consider
determining
whether
death
appropriate
gregg
joint
opinion
suggested
excessively
vague
sentencing
standards
might
lead
arbitrary
capricious
sentencing
patterns
condemned
furman
moreover
woodson
north
carolina
plurality
concluded
state
must
structure
capital
sentencing
procedure
permit
consideration
individual
characteristics
offender
crime
principle
individualization
extended
lockett
ohio
plurality
determined
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
require
sentencer
capital
case
precluded
considering
mitigating
factor
aspect
defendant
character
record
circumstances
offense
defendant
proffers
basis
sentence
less
death
emphasis
original
footnotes
omitted
finally
gardner
florida
plurality
held
death
sentence
may
imposed
basis
presentence
investigation
report
containing
information
defendant
opportunity
explain
deny
beyond
limitations
noted
deferred
state
choice
substantive
factors
relevant
penalty
determination
view
briggs
instruction
run
afoul
constraints
addressing
respondent
specific
arguments
find
unpersuasive
suggestion
possible
commutation
life
sentence
must
held
constitutionally
irrelevant
sentencing
decision
speculative
element
jury
consideration
point
find
jurek
texas
controlling
texas
capital
sentencing
system
upheld
jurek
limits
capital
homicides
intentional
knowing
murders
committed
five
situations
jury
finds
defendant
guilty
one
five
categories
murder
jury
must
answer
three
statutory
questions
jury
concludes
state
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
question
answered
affirmative
death
sentence
imposed
approving
statutory
scheme
joint
opinion
jurek
rejected
contention
second
statutory
question
requiring
consideration
defendant
future
dangerousness
unconstitutionally
vague
involved
prediction
human
behavior
course
easy
predict
future
behavior
fact
determination
difficult
however
mean
made
indeed
prediction
future
criminal
conduct
essential
element
many
decisions
rendered
throughout
criminal
justice
system
sentencing
authority
must
predict
convicted
person
probable
future
conduct
engages
process
determining
punishment
impose
sentenced
prison
predictions
must
made
parole
authorities
task
texas
jury
must
perform
answering
statutory
question
issue
thus
basically
different
task
performed
countless
times
day
throughout
american
system
criminal
justice
essential
jury
possible
relevant
information
individual
defendant
whose
fate
must
determine
texas
law
clearly
assures
evidence
adduced
footnotes
omitted
diminution
reliability
sentencing
decision
kind
condemned
gardner
florida
gardner
reversed
death
sentence
imposed
part
basis
confidential
portion
presentence
investigation
report
disclosed
either
defendant
counsel
potential
sentencer
might
rested
decision
part
erroneous
inaccurate
information
defendant
opportunity
explain
deny
need
reliability
capital
sentencing
dictated
death
penalty
reversed
gardner
provides
support
respondent
briggs
instruction
gives
jury
accurate
information
defendant
counsel
aware
preclude
defendant
offering
evidence
argument
regarding
governor
power
commute
life
sentence
closely
related
yet
distinct
respondent
speculativeness
argument
contention
briggs
instruction
constitutionally
infirm
deflects
jury
focus
central
task
respondent
argues
commutation
instruction
diverts
jury
undertaking
kind
individualized
sentencing
determination
woodson
north
carolina
constitutionally
indispensable
part
process
inflicting
penalty
death
already
noted
supra
functional
matter
briggs
instruction
focuses
jury
attention
whether
particular
defendant
one
whose
possible
return
society
desirable
sense
jury
deliberation
individualized
instruction
invites
jury
predict
much
future
governor
might
defendant
might
released
society
contention
injecting
factor
jury
deliberations
constitutes
departure
kind
individualized
focus
required
capital
sentencing
decisions
implicitly
rejected
decision
jurek
indeed
noting
consideration
defendant
future
dangerousness
inquiry
common
throughout
criminal
justice
system
joint
opinion
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
observed
essential
jury
possible
relevant
information
individual
defendant
whose
fate
must
determine
texas
law
clearly
assures
evidence
adduced
texas
scheme
california
sentencing
system
ensures
jury
information
regarding
individual
characteristics
defendant
offense
including
nature
circumstances
crime
defendant
character
background
history
mental
condition
physical
condition
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
respondent
also
relies
beck
alabama
support
contention
briggs
instruction
undermines
jury
responsibility
make
individualized
sentencing
determination
beck
held
jury
capital
case
must
permitted
consider
verdict
guilt
noncapital
offense
evidence
support
verdict
disapproving
alabama
statute
precluded
giving
lesser
included
offense
charge
capital
cases
concluded
chief
flaw
statute
interjects
irrelevant
considerations
factfinding
process
diverting
jury
attention
central
issue
whether
state
satisfied
burden
proving
beyond
reasonable
doubt
defendant
guilty
capital
crime
failure
give
lesser
included
offense
instruction
diverted
jury
two
ways
jury
might
convict
defendant
capital
offense
belief
guilty
crime
given
mandatory
nature
death
penalty
alabama
law
jury
might
acquit
think
defendant
crime
warrants
death
according
respondent
briggs
instruction
like
removal
lesser
included
offense
option
beck
predisposes
jury
act
without
regard
whether
death
penalty
called
facts
unconvinced
briggs
instruction
constrains
jury
sentencing
choice
manner
condemned
beck
restricting
jury
beck
two
sentencing
alternatives
conviction
capital
offense
acquittal
essence
placed
artificial
alternatives
jury
unavailability
third
option
thereby
created
risk
unwarranted
conviction
contrast
briggs
instruction
limit
jury
two
sentencing
choices
neither
may
appropriate
instead
places
jury
additional
element
considered
along
many
factors
determining
sentence
appropriate
circumstances
defendant
case
point
however
fundamental
difference
nature
determination
issue
beck
nature
choice
penalty
phase
noted
beck
identified
chief
vice
alabama
failure
provide
lesser
included
offense
option
deflecting
jury
attention
central
issue
whether
state
satisfied
burden
proving
beyond
reasonable
doubt
defendant
guilty
capital
crime
emphasis
added
returning
conviction
jury
must
satisfy
necessary
elements
particular
crime
proved
beyond
reasonable
doubt
fixing
penalty
however
similar
central
issue
jury
attention
may
diverted
jury
finds
defendant
falls
within
legislatively
defined
category
persons
eligible
death
penalty
respondent
jury
determining
truth
alleged
special
circumstance
jury
free
consider
myriad
factors
determine
whether
death
appropriate
punishment
sense
jury
choice
life
death
must
individualized
constitution
require
jury
ignore
possible
factors
process
selecting
defendants
actually
sentenced
death
zant
stephens
omitted
noted
essential
effect
briggs
instruction
inject
sentencing
calculus
consideration
akin
aggravating
factor
future
dangerousness
texas
scheme
see
supra
element
simply
one
countless
considerations
weighed
jury
seeking
judge
punishment
appropriate
individual
defendant
rehnquist
concurring
judgment
short
concern
beck
regarding
risk
unwarranted
conviction
simply
directly
translatable
deliberative
process
capital
jury
engages
determining
appropriate
penalty
single
determinative
issue
apart
general
concern
penalty
tailored
individual
defendant
offense
finally
emphasize
informing
jury
governor
power
commute
sentence
life
without
possibility
parole
merely
accurate
statement
potential
sentencing
alternative
describe
sentence
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
simply
inaccurate
state
law
governor
possesses
authority
commute
sentence
lesser
sentence
includes
possibility
parole
briggs
instruction
thus
corrects
misconception
supplies
jury
accurate
information
deliberation
selecting
appropriate
sentence
see
also
supra
iii
concluded
capital
sentencing
jury
consideration
governor
power
commute
life
sentence
prohibited
federal
constitution
address
respondent
contention
briggs
instruction
must
held
unconstitutional
fails
inform
jurors
also
death
sentence
may
commuted
essence
respondent
complains
briggs
instruction
creates
misleading
impression
jury
prevent
defendant
return
society
imposing
death
sentence
thus
biasing
jury
favor
death
respondent
therefore
concludes
commutation
factor
properly
considered
jury
basic
principles
fairness
require
full
disclosure
made
respect
commutation
brief
respondent
thus
according
respondent
federal
constitution
permits
jury
consider
possible
commutation
life
sentence
federal
constitution
requires
jury
also
instructed
death
sentence
may
commuted
find
respondent
argument
puzzling
must
assume
respondent
principal
objection
impact
briggs
instruction
skew
jury
toward
imposing
death
fail
see
instruction
governor
power
commute
death
sentences
well
life
sentences
restores
situation
one
neutrality
although
instruction
neutral
sense
giving
jury
complete
factually
accurate
information
commutation
power
balance
impact
briggs
instruction
even
assuming
arguendo
current
instruction
impermissible
skewing
effect
disclosure
complete
nature
commutation
power
eliminate
skewing
favor
death
increase
reliability
sentencing
choice
jury
concerned
preventing
defendant
potential
return
society
less
inclined
vote
death
penalty
upon
learning
even
death
sentence
may
effect
fact
advising
jurors
death
verdict
theoretically
modifiable
thus
final
may
incline
approach
sentencing
decision
less
appreciation
gravity
choice
moral
responsibility
reposed
sentencers
short
instruction
disclosing
governor
power
commute
death
sentence
may
operate
defendant
distinct
disadvantage
precisely
perception
defendant
prejudiced
instruction
possible
commutation
death
sentence
led
california
people
morse
cal
prohibit
giving
instruction
thus
state
law
time
respondent
ramos
trial
precluded
giving
half
commutation
instruction
respondent
argues
constitutionally
required
moreover
convinced
respondent
argument
briggs
instruction
alone
impermissibly
impels
jury
toward
voting
death
sentence
aggravating
factor
presented
prosecution
impact
concluded
part
ii
supra
state
constitutionally
entitled
permit
juror
consideration
governor
power
commute
life
sentence
information
relevant
factually
accurate
properly
jury
moreover
trial
judge
instructions
place
particular
emphasis
role
factor
jury
ultimate
decision
zant
stephens
cf
iv
sum
briggs
instruction
violate
substantive
limitations
precedents
imposed
capital
sentencing
process
preclude
individualized
sentencing
determinations
consideration
mitigating
factors
impermissibly
inject
element
speculative
jury
deliberation
finally
failure
inform
jury
also
governor
power
commute
death
sentence
render
constitutionally
infirm
therefore
defer
state
identification
governor
power
commute
life
sentence
substantive
factor
presented
sentencing
jury
consideration
conclusion
intended
override
contrary
judgment
state
legislatures
capital
sentencing
juries
permitted
consider
governor
power
commute
sentence
elementary
free
provide
greater
protections
criminal
justice
system
federal
constitution
requires
sit
judges
legislators
wisdom
decision
permit
juror
consideration
possible
commutation
best
left
hold
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
prohibit
instruction
judgment
california
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
respondent
offered
evidence
show
inter
alia
adoptive
parents
died
young
came
bad
influence
codefendant
respondent
mild
congenital
brain
damage
low
intelligence
quotient
borderline
schizophrenia
influence
alcohol
drugs
time
offenses
intended
graze
victims
shot
jury
shall
impose
sentence
death
concludes
aggravating
circumstances
outweigh
mitigating
circumstances
shall
impose
sentence
life
without
possibility
parole
mitigating
circumstances
outweigh
aggravating
circumstances
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
ibid
instruction
referred
hereinafter
briggs
instruction
incorporated
california
penal
code
result
voter
initiative
popularly
known
briggs
initiative
trial
judge
gave
instruction
objection
respondent
ground
instruction
mandated
legislation
tr
dissent
justice
richardson
concluded
briggs
instruction
harmless
nonprejudicial
merely
informs
jurors
information
matter
common
knowledge
instruction
relevant
issue
parole
injected
sentencing
process
one
alternative
punishments
jury
must
consider
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
addition
dissent
concluded
instruction
failure
also
inform
jury
governor
power
commute
death
sentence
render
constitutionally
infirm
people
morse
cal
held
basis
supervisory
powers
jurors
instructed
death
sentence
commuted
reduced
jury
sense
responsibility
imposing
capital
sentence
therefore
briggs
instruction
struck
fails
require
instruction
type
condemned
morse
california
also
concluded
certain
testimony
defense
psychiatrist
inadmissible
matter
state
evidence
law
defense
objection
penalty
phase
prosecutor
allowed
elicit
psychiatrist
respondent
aware
governor
power
commute
life
sentence
without
parole
lesser
sentence
included
possibility
parole
according
psychiatrist
respondent
indicated
released
parole
years
prison
probably
built
within
feelings
anger
frustration
attempt
take
revenge
anyone
involved
trial
including
district
attorney
prosecuted
case
judge
presided
jurors
voted
convict
cal
omitted
state
ruled
trial
abused
discretion
admitting
testimony
prejudice
created
admission
testimony
outweighed
probative
value
see
cal
evid
code
ann
west
respondent
argues
reach
constitutional
issues
raised
state
ruling
represents
possible
adequate
independent
state
ground
state
decision
reverse
death
sentence
find
bar
reaching
federal
questions
state
quite
clearly
rested
reversal
death
sentence
solely
federal
constitution
cal
moreover
respect
ruling
evidentiary
question
determine
whether
error
warranted
reversal
death
penalty
held
testimony
admitted
penalty
phase
retried
therefore
adequacy
ruling
support
reversal
sentence
addressed
state
see
michigan
long
post
course
remand
state
free
determine
whether
matter
state
law
evidentiary
error
sufficient
basis
reversing
death
sentence
addition
california
expressly
declined
decide
whether
briggs
instruction
independently
violates
provisions
state
constitution
cal
evidentiary
issue
course
state
may
address
question
remand
california
construed
briggs
instruction
inviting
capital
sentencing
juries
consider
commutation
power
sentencing
determination
see
view
statute
accordingly
see
eddings
oklahoma
concurring
beck
alabama
opinion
stevens
joined
burger
brennan
stewart
blackmun
powell
jj
lockett
ohio
opinion
burger
joined
stewart
powell
stevens
jj
gardner
florida
opinion
stevens
joined
stewart
powell
jj
white
concurring
judgment
woodson
north
carolina
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
proffitt
florida
jurek
texas
woodson
north
carolina
supra
plurality
opinion
roberts
louisiana
plurality
opinion
moreover
approving
sentencing
schemes
georgia
florida
texas
joint
opinions
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
substitute
views
state
legislatures
particular
substantive
factors
chosen
narrow
class
defendants
eligible
death
penalty
example
georgia
scheme
examined
gregg
least
specified
aggravating
circumstances
must
found
beyond
reasonable
doubt
jury
may
consider
whether
death
appropriate
punishment
individual
defendant
contrast
texas
scheme
approved
jurek
texas
supra
state
attempted
limit
category
defendants
upon
death
sentence
may
imposed
narrowing
capital
homicides
intentional
knowing
murders
committed
five
particular
situations
see
upholding
texas
scheme
joint
opinion
observed
texas
adopted
list
statutory
aggravating
circumstances
existence
justify
imposition
death
penalty
georgia
florida
action
narrowing
categories
murders
death
sentence
may
ever
imposed
serves
much
purpose
cf
godfrey
georgia
reversing
death
sentence
rested
unconstitutionally
broad
vague
construction
aggravating
circumstance
believe
capital
cases
fundamental
respect
humanity
underlying
eighth
amendment
requires
consideration
character
record
individual
offender
circumstances
particular
offense
constitutionally
indispensable
part
process
inflicting
penalty
death
woodson
supra
see
also
gregg
georgia
quoting
pennsylvania
ex
rel
sullivan
ashe
see
also
zant
stephens
rehnquist
concurring
judgment
enmund
florida
dissenting
eddings
oklahoma
concurring
burger
dissenting
see
also
cal
briggs
instruction
injects
sentencing
calculus
entirely
irrelevant
factor
questions
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
art
supp
analogy
matters
raised
jurors
minds
briggs
instruction
texas
statutory
factor
defendant
future
dangerousness
intellectual
sleight
hand
post
blackmun
dissenting
avoid
analogy
ignore
process
thought
briggs
instruction
inevitably
engenders
jury
deliberations
sure
briggs
instruction
terms
may
incline
thoughts
probability
current
future
governor
might
commute
defendant
sentence
nevertheless
whatever
jurors
thoughts
probability
alone
inextricably
linked
thought
whether
desirable
defendant
released
society
evaluating
question
jury
consider
defendant
potential
reform
whether
probable
future
behavior
counsels
desirability
release
society
see
also
aba
standards
criminal
justice
ed
giving
example
legitimate
reason
selecting
total
confinement
fact
onfinement
necessary
order
protect
public
serious
criminal
activity
defendant
also
observe
respect
relevance
information
conveyed
briggs
instruction
issue
parole
commutation
presented
language
used
describe
one
jury
sentencing
choices
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
state
california
reasonably
concluded
jurors
generally
aware
governor
power
commute
death
sentence
jurors
aware
governor
also
may
commute
sentence
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
informed
avoid
possible
misconception
conveyed
description
sentencing
alternative
dissent
justice
marshall
argues
balanced
instruction
given
solution
permit
misleading
instruction
prohibit
altogether
instruction
concerning
commutation
post
observation
incorrect
least
two
reasons
first
discussed
see
infra
suggest
federal
constitutional
infirmity
giving
instruction
concerning
governor
power
commute
death
sentence
note
comment
prohibited
state
law
second
briggs
instruction
simply
misleading
contrary
instruction
gives
jury
accurate
information
corrects
misleading
description
sentencing
choice
available
jury
although
justice
richardson
noted
cal
jurors
may
general
awareness
availability
commutation
parole
statutory
description
one
sentencing
choices
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
may
generate
misleading
impression
governor
commute
sentence
one
included
possibility
parole
briggs
instruction
merely
dispels
possible
misunderstanding
defendant
may
offer
evidence
argument
regarding
commutation
power
respondent
counsel
addressed
possibility
governor
commutation
life
sentence
closing
argument
tr
briggs
instruction
thereby
accomplishes
result
occur
instead
requiring
briggs
instruction
state
merely
described
sentence
statutorily
life
imprisonment
possibility
commutation
surely
respondent
argue
constitution
prohibits
state
accurately
characterizing
sentencing
choices
note
respondent
indeed
contend
california
sentencing
scheme
violates
directive
lockett
ohio
california
statute
question
permits
defendant
present
evidence
show
penalty
less
death
appropriate
case
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
addition
note
assurance
texas
jury
acts
particularized
less
speculative
informational
base
considers
defendant
future
dangerousness
california
jury
estelle
smith
noted
expert
psychiatric
testimony
defendant
necessary
prove
defendant
future
dangerousness
texas
scheme
nder
texas
capital
sentencing
procedure
inquiry
necessary
jury
resolution
future
dangerousness
issue
sense
confined
province
psychiatric
experts
sense
disapproving
use
psychiatric
testimony
bearing
issue
future
dangerousness
holding
jurek
guided
recognition
inquiry
mandated
texas
law
require
resort
medical
experts
entencing
decisions
rest
inquiry
countless
facts
circumstances
type
proof
particular
elements
returning
conviction
zant
stephens
rehnquist
concurring
judgment
consideration
commutation
power
undermine
jury
statutory
responsibility
weigh
aggravating
factors
mitigating
factors
impose
death
former
outweigh
latter
desirability
defendant
release
society
simply
one
matter
enters
weighing
process
moreover
fact
jury
given
specific
guidance
commutation
factor
figure
determination
presents
constitutional
problem
held
zant
stephens
supra
constitutional
prohibition
arbitrary
capricious
capital
sentencing
determinations
violated
capital
sentencing
scheme
permits
jury
exercise
unbridled
discretion
determining
whether
death
penalty
imposed
found
defendant
member
class
made
eligible
penalty
statute
see
also
ali
model
penal
code
prop
draft
providing
besides
aggravating
mitigating
factors
sentencer
shall
take
account
facts
deems
relevant
model
penal
code
sentencing
stage
shall
inform
jury
nature
sentence
imprisonment
may
imposed
including
implication
respect
possible
release
upon
parole
jury
verdict
sentence
death
ibid
approval
gregg
georgia
evidence
informing
penalty
determination
georgia
equally
appropriate
think
georgia
wisely
chosen
impose
unnecessary
restrictions
evidence
offered
presentence
hearing
approve
open
argument
long
evidence
introduced
arguments
made
presentence
hearing
prejudice
defendant
preferable
impose
restrictions
think
desirable
jury
much
information
possible
makes
sentencing
decision
art
california
constitution
implementing
statutory
sections
cal
penal
code
ann
et
seq
west
governor
possesses
broad
authority
reprieve
pardon
commute
sentences
including
death
sentence
although
state
statute
containing
briggs
instruction
requires
instruction
governor
power
commute
sentence
life
without
possibility
parole
cal
penal
code
ann
west
supp
trial
judge
case
preceded
specific
instruction
additional
statement
governor
empowered
grant
reprieve
pardon
commutation
sentence
following
conviction
crime
tr
emphasis
added
statement
ambiguous
might
construed
advising
jury
governor
power
commute
death
sentence
well
life
sentence
however
oral
argument
state
respondent
argued
ambiguity
quoted
sentence
interpreted
advising
jury
possible
commutation
death
sentence
tr
oral
arg
significantly
state
interpret
instruction
providing
full
disclosure
extent
governor
power
commutation
fact
affirmatively
concluded
jury
informed
sentence
death
may
commuted
modified
cal
emphasis
original
defer
state
finding
point
see
wolfe
north
carolina
lloyd
fry
roofing
wood
observe
incidentally
respondent
time
requested
trial
judge
also
charge
jury
regarding
governor
power
commute
death
sentence
based
supervisory
powers
california
held
morse
capital
sentencing
jury
instructed
either
trial
judge
governor
possible
reduction
death
penalty
concluded
suggesting
authority
review
propriety
jury
decision
impose
death
instruction
tended
reduce
jury
sense
responsibility
fixing
penalty
cal
given
conclusion
part
ii
supra
state
may
constitutionally
permit
consideration
governor
power
commute
sentence
life
imprisonment
without
possibility
parole
suggest
course
federal
constitution
prohibits
instruction
regarding
governor
power
commute
death
sentence
trial
judge
instructed
jury
consider
evidence
applicable
instructions
law
received
part
trial
case
consider
circumstances
extenuate
gravity
crime
even
though
legal
excuse
crime
tr
justice
marshall
dissent
claims
briggs
instruction
encourages
jury
impose
death
penalty
basis
erroneous
assumption
defendant
sentenced
death
released
post
emphasize
instruction
informational
satisfies
jurek
requirement
hat
essential
jury
possible
relevant
information
individual
defendant
whose
fate
must
determine
addition
justice
marshall
wrongly
assumes
briggs
instruction
determining
factor
jury
choice
appropriate
punishment
emphasized
supra
briggs
instruction
advise
encourage
jury
reach
verdict
reliance
upon
information
cal
richardson
dissenting
addition
stated
trial
judge
instructions
case
emphasize
role
factor
jury
decision
see
code
ann
prohibiting
argument
possibility
pardon
parole
clemency
many
state
courts
held
improper
jury
consider
informed
argument
instruction
possibility
commutation
pardon
parole
basis
decision
cases
always
clear
often
appear
whether
state
decision
based
federal
constitutional
principles
many
instances
however
state
decision
appears
rest
interpretation
state
capital
sentencing
system
division
responsibility
sentencer
authorities
effected
scheme
see
people
walker
statute
requires
jury
case
may
consider
aggravating
mitigating
factors
relevant
imposition
death
penalty
whether
defendant
may
future
time
paroled
proper
aggravating
factor
consider
determining
whether
death
penalty
imposed
emphasis
added
state
lindsey
la
nowhere
entire
sentencing
scheme
state
code
criminal
procedure
provide
sentencing
jury
may
consider
offender
future
potential
release
life
sentence
imposed
iving
jury
carte
blanche
permission
decide
potential
factual
consequences
life
sentence
allows
weigh
alternative
terms
clear
meaning
provided
legislature
terms
particular
number
years
versus
death
penalty
thereby
undermining
jury
responsibility
accept
law
given
legislature
emphasis
added
poole
state
md
type
argument
likely
allow
jury
disregard
duty
determine
aggravating
mitigating
factors
balance
one
required
state
statute
consideration
possibility
parole
simply
irrelevant
emphasis
added
state
atkinson
legislature
committed
jury
responsibility
determine
first
instance
whether
punishment
life
death
charged
another
agency
responsibility
deciding
life
sentence
shall
executed
quoting
state
white
see
also
sukle
people
consideration
parole
outside
proper
scope
jury
duty
fixed
statute
state
jones
justice
marshall
justice
brennan
joins
justice
blackmun
joins
parts
ii
iii
iv
dissenting
even
accepted
prevailing
view
death
penalty
may
constitutionally
imposed
certain
circumstances
agree
state
may
tip
balance
favor
death
informing
jury
defendant
may
eventually
released
executed
view
briggs
instruction
unconstitutional
three
reasons
misleading
invites
speculation
guesswork
injects
capital
sentencing
process
factor
bears
relation
nature
offense
character
offender
continue
adhere
view
death
penalty
circumstances
cruel
unusual
punishment
forbidden
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
see
gregg
georgia
marshall
dissenting
furman
georgia
marshall
concurring
vacate
death
sentence
basis
alone
however
even
accept
prevailing
view
death
penalty
may
constitutionally
imposed
certain
circumstances
vacate
death
sentence
case
ii
apart
permissibility
ever
instructing
jury
consider
possibility
commutation
briggs
instruction
unconstitutional
misleads
jury
scope
governor
clemency
power
upholding
instruction
majority
authorizes
fraud
deceit
serious
state
actions
taking
human
life
cal
see
ibid
instruction
part
contractual
negotiation
arguably
constitute
tortious
deceit
fraudulent
misrepresentation
briggs
instruction
may
well
mislead
jury
believing
eliminate
possibility
commutation
imposing
death
sentence
indicates
governor
commute
life
sentence
without
possibility
parole
governor
also
commute
death
sentence
instruction
thus
erroneously
suggests
jury
death
sentence
assure
defendant
permanent
removal
society
whereas
alternative
sentence
see
people
haskett
cal
presented
choice
jury
may
impose
death
sentence
prevent
governor
exercising
power
commute
life
sentence
without
possibility
parole
see
gardner
florida
opinion
stevens
must
assume
cases
instruction
decisive
yet
sentencing
decision
based
grotesque
mistake
governor
also
power
commute
death
sentence
possibility
mistake
deliberately
injected
sentencing
process
briggs
instruction
view
constitution
simply
permit
state
stac
deck
capital
defendant
manner
witherspoon
illinois
see
adams
texas
majority
assumes
issue
whether
balanced
instruction
cure
defect
ante
argues
instruction
governor
power
commute
death
sentence
seriously
prejudicial
defendant
event
given
since
forbidden
state
law
ante
analysis
based
fundamental
misunderstanding
issue
question
whether
balanced
instruction
less
advantageous
defendants
whether
briggs
instruction
misleading
therefore
unconstitutional
briggs
instruction
indeed
misleading
majority
never
denies
may
lead
jurors
impose
death
sentence
wrongly
assume
sentence
ensure
defendant
released
hardly
defended
ground
balanced
instruction
prejudicial
majority
points
compelling
reasons
informing
jury
governor
power
commute
death
sentences
solution
permit
misleading
instruction
prohibit
altogether
instruction
concerning
commutation
point
seems
eluded
majority
inexplicable
reason
concludes
since
balanced
instruction
unavailable
state
free
mislead
jury
governor
clemency
power
one
searches
majority
opinion
vain
explanation
state
inability
give
complete
statement
governor
commutation
powers
possibly
justify
giving
incomplete
statement
misleading
thought
common
ground
capital
sentencing
process
must
reliable
rational
free
mistakes
humanly
possible
yet
upholds
briggs
instruction
without
ever
disputing
substantial
potential
mislead
thus
authorizes
state
cros
line
neutrality
encourage
death
sentences
deceiving
jury
witherspoon
supra
iii
briggs
instruction
struck
misleading
also
invites
imposition
death
penalty
basis
mere
speculation
majority
concedes
ante
briggs
instruction
invites
jury
consider
possibility
sentence
defendant
death
may
released
commutation
subsequent
parole
instruction
thus
invites
jury
speculate
possibility
release
decide
whether
wishes
foreclose
possibility
imposing
death
sentence
respondent
contends
state
may
invite
jury
impose
death
sentence
basis
ad
hoc
speculation
likelihood
release
instead
directly
confronting
contention
majority
denies
principal
effect
briggs
instruction
invite
jury
predict
actions
future
governor
parole
board
instead
characterizes
briggs
instruction
mere
proxy
determination
future
dangerousness
ante
reasons
texas
scheme
upheld
jurek
texas
requires
jury
determine
defendant
future
dangerousness
jurek
controlling
ante
briggs
instruction
therefore
constitutional
briggs
instruction
simply
reduced
functional
equivalent
scheme
upheld
jurek
neither
requires
even
suggests
jury
make
finding
concerning
defendant
future
dangerousness
jury
provided
evidence
base
finding
importantly
whatever
else
briggs
instruction
might
incidentally
lead
juries
consider
one
thing
expressly
invites
impose
death
penalty
basis
ad
hoc
speculations
likelihood
commutation
individual
jury
predictions
possibility
commutation
parole
represent
sheer
speculation
godfrey
georgia
plurality
opinion
jury
simply
basis
assessing
likelihood
particular
defendant
eventually
released
sentenced
death
invite
jury
indulge
speculation
ask
foretell
numerous
imponderables
policies
may
adopted
unnamed
future
governors
parole
officials
change
defendant
character
well
factors
might
deemed
relevant
commutation
parole
decisions
yet
questions
human
mind
answer
rest
future
events
unpredictable
people
morse
cal
inevitable
part
commutation
decision
standardless
predictive
inquiry
becomes
even
hazardous
majority
suggests
jury
also
considers
whether
defendant
pose
threat
society
released
jury
short
assess
likelihood
defendant
released
also
likelihood
release
mistake
fail
see
jury
expected
forecast
future
character
particular
defendant
risk
state
authority
armed
contemporaneous
information
character
whose
contents
jury
guess
misjudge
character
erroneously
release
sentencing
decisions
based
groundless
predictions
clearly
arbitrary
capricious
tennessee
put
death
sentence
imposed
basis
product
mere
guesswork
predictions
particular
juries
reflect
little
wild
speculation
differences
among
juries
predictions
less
product
caprice
reason
yet
briggs
instruction
creates
possibility
one
defendant
may
sentenced
die
another
permitted
live
first
jury
perceived
greater
likelihood
commutation
parole
hardly
constitutes
meaningful
principled
basis
distinguishing
case
death
penalty
imposed
one
gregg
georgia
quoting
furman
georgia
white
concurring
see
also
godfrey
georgia
supra
lockett
ohio
plurality
opinion
imposition
death
sentences
basis
sheer
speculation
unknowables
arbitrary
capricious
prior
cases
stressed
heightened
need
reliability
rationality
determination
whether
individual
sentenced
death
woodson
north
carolina
plurality
opinion
lockett
ohio
supra
gardner
florida
briggs
instruction
injects
level
unreliability
uncertainty
arbitrariness
tolerated
capital
case
beck
alabama
iv
even
briggs
instruction
mislead
jury
call
guesswork
unconstitutional
independent
reason
introduces
impermissible
factor
capital
sentencing
process
instruction
invites
juries
impose
death
sentence
eliminate
possibility
eventual
release
commutation
parole
yet
possibility
bears
relation
defendant
character
nature
crime
generally
accepted
justification
death
penalty
since
factor
considered
jury
may
decisive
decision
sentence
defendant
death
gardner
florida
supra
opinion
stevens
jury
clearly
permitted
consider
factor
rather
permitted
consider
factors
provide
principled
basis
imposing
death
sentence
rather
life
sentence
see
zant
stephens
noting
jury
may
consider
race
religion
political
affiliation
suggesting
factors
truly
mitigating
basis
imposing
death
sentence
view
constitution
forbids
jury
consider
factor
bears
relation
defendant
character
nature
crime
unrelated
penological
objective
justify
imposition
death
penalty
cases
establish
capital
sentencing
proceeding
focus
nature
criminal
act
character
offender
order
minimize
risk
death
penalty
imposed
capriciously
selected
group
offenders
decision
impose
must
guided
standards
sentencing
authority
focus
particularized
circumstances
crime
defendant
gregg
georgia
supra
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
thus
stressed
appropriateness
death
penalty
depend
relevant
facets
character
record
individual
offender
woodson
north
carolina
supra
considerations
extent
premeditation
nature
crime
prior
criminal
activity
considered
relevant
determination
appropriate
sentence
requirement
jury
focus
factors
designed
ensure
punishment
tailored
defendant
personal
responsibility
moral
guilt
enmund
florida
emphasis
added
sharp
contrast
mere
possibility
commutation
wholly
utterly
foreign
defendant
guilt
even
remotely
related
blameworthiness
possibility
bears
absolutely
relation
nature
offense
character
individual
whether
defendant
crime
warrants
death
penalty
turn
speculative
possibility
may
may
occur
possibility
commutation
relationship
state
purposes
said
justify
death
penalty
capital
punishment
simply
justified
necessary
keep
criminals
streets
whatever
might
said
concerning
retribution
deterrence
justifications
capital
punishment
seriously
defended
necessary
insulate
public
persons
likely
commit
crimes
future
life
imprisonment
necessary
solitary
confinement
fully
accomplish
aim
incapacitation
see
gregg
georgia
supra
marshall
dissenting
furman
georgia
supra
marshall
concurring
death
penalty
justified
considerations
incapacitation
implicitly
acknowledged
gregg
joint
opinion
justices
stewart
powell
stevens
relied
entirely
retribution
deterrence
possible
justifications
death
penalty
mentioned
incapacitation
passing
nother
purpose
discussed
conclusion
way
altered
california
decision
establish
alternative
sentence
death
guarantee
permanent
confinement
death
sentence
inappropriate
state
justify
imposition
ground
alternative
provided
case
leaves
open
possibility
future
release
may
considered
inadequate
jury
analogy
may
usefully
drawn
decision
beck
alabama
beck
struck
instruction
created
risk
defendant
convicted
crime
guilty
necessarily
rejected
suggestion
instruction
justified
fact
alternative
presented
conviction
presenting
jury
capital
case
choice
unwarranted
conviction
acquittal
impermissible
may
induce
jury
convict
simply
ensure
defendant
receives
punishment
choice
seem
inevitably
enhance
risk
unwarranted
conviction
similarly
defendant
may
sentenced
death
simply
alternative
state
adopted
ensure
incapacitation
state
may
use
unavailability
permanent
imprisonment
induce
juries
sentence
death
defendants
whose
appropriate
punishment
something
less
severe
death
inflicted
life
sentence
appropriate
abhorrent
thought
state
white
finally
briggs
instruction
impermissibly
invites
jurors
impose
death
sentences
basis
desire
foreclose
duly
authorized
review
judgment
conviction
although
power
grant
clemency
restricted
standards
reasonable
assume
least
exercised
governor
concludes
criminal
justice
system
unjustly
convicted
defendant
roberts
louisiana
white
joined
burger
blackmun
rehnquist
dissenting
yet
jury
whose
judgment
conviction
subject
future
application
clemency
led
believe
may
impose
death
sentence
preclude
application
aware
authority
majority
cites
none
proposition
judicial
body
may
base
decision
less
one
concerning
life
death
individual
desire
immunize
actions
duly
authorized
reexamination
conclusion
juries
permitted
consider
commutation
parole
deciding
appropriate
sentence
shared
nearly
every
jurisdiction
considered
question
prior
decisions
consistently
sought
guidance
objective
evidence
country
present
judgment
determining
constitutionality
particular
capital
sentencing
schemes
coker
georgia
see
solem
helm
ante
enmund
dissenting
beck
alabama
supra
gregg
georgia
woodson
north
carolina
scarcely
word
explanation
today
decision
dismisses
overwhelming
weight
authority
establishing
jury
may
informed
possibility
defendant
may
released
sentenced
death
propriety
allowing
sentencing
jury
consider
power
governor
commute
sentence
parole
board
grant
parole
considered
jurisdictions
addition
california
jurisdictions
concluded
california
case
jury
consider
possibility
pardon
parole
commutation
three
jurisdictions
deemed
proper
allow
jury
consider
possibility
sentence
reduced
commutation
parole
two
cases
decided
furman
georgia
one
decision
approved
jury
consideration
parole
commutation
decision
concerned
capital
sentencing
scheme
jury
merely
recommends
sentence
moreover
view
embraced
majority
almost
uniformly
rejected
formerly
permitted
jury
consideration
parole
commutation
trend
renounce
prior
decisions
thought
impressive
consensus
weigh
heavily
balance
determining
constitutionality
briggs
instruction
enmund
florida
supra
majority
breezily
dismisses
consensus
terse
statement
free
provide
greater
protections
federal
constitution
requires
ante
observation
hardly
suffices
explanation
however
since
thing
said
enmund
coker
beck
woodson
yet
decisions
looked
prevailing
standards
guidance
majority
approach
inconsistent
compelling
reasons
according
due
regard
coker
georgia
contemporary
judgments
jurisdictions
stressed
eighth
amendment
must
draw
meaning
evolving
standards
decency
mark
progress
maturing
society
trop
dulles
plurality
opinion
entral
application
amendment
determination
contemporary
standards
regarding
infliction
punishment
woodson
north
carolina
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
moreover
unless
judgment
informed
objective
factors
maximum
possible
extent
decisions
may
reflect
merely
subjective
views
individual
justices
coker
supra
plurality
opinion
vi
whatever
interest
state
may
imposing
death
penalty
justification
misleading
instruction
obviously
calculated
increase
likelihood
death
sentence
inviting
jury
speculate
possibility
defendant
eventually
released
executed
vacate
respondent
death
sentence
state
courts
recognized
juries
compensate
possibility
future
clemency
imposing
harsher
sentences
see
farris
state
smith
state
del
state
white
majority
notes
respondent
request
jury
charge
regarding
governor
power
commute
death
sentence
ante
makes
nothing
fact
however
reasons
plain
california
find
respondent
waived
objection
misleading
nature
briggs
instruction
event
instruction
forbidden
state
law
reasons
articulated
majority
ante
constitution
presumably
forbid
instructing
jury
capital
sentencing
proceeding
consider
governor
powers
commute
death
sentence
see
generally
farris
state
supra
noting
instruction
tends
breed
irresponsibility
part
jurors
premised
upon
proposition
corrective
action
taken
others
later
date
state
jones
jury
sense
responsibility
reduced
reliance
executive
review
majority
suggests
defendant
free
correct
misleading
impression
created
briggs
instruction
informing
jurors
governor
power
commute
death
sentences
ante
suggestion
anomalous
indeed
since
majority
concluded
jurors
informed
inclined
approach
sentencing
decision
less
appreciation
gravity
choice
moral
responsibility
reposed
sentencers
ante
agree
state
may
force
defendant
choose
sentenced
jury
misinformed
one
unlikely
view
task
requisite
sense
responsibility
briggs
instruction
merely
invites
jury
speculate
likelihood
future
release
says
nothing
whether
likelihood
future
criminal
activity
event
release
jury
may
decide
impose
death
penalty
prevent
defendant
release
simply
concluded
defendant
deserve
reenter
society
concern
dangerousness
jurek
says
nothing
permissibility
imposing
death
sentence
basis
addition
although
jury
presented
briggs
instruction
might
choose
take
account
future
dangerousness
way
makes
instruction
functional
equivalent
texas
scheme
upholding
texas
scheme
stressed
texas
law
assured
possible
relevant
information
presented
jury
briggs
instruction
jury
required
make
finding
concerning
defendant
future
dangerousness
also
requirement
evidence
future
dangerousness
introduced
indeed
rare
exceptions
evidence
inadmissible
california
law
see
people
murtishaw
cal
cert
denied
farris
state
quoting
graham
state
accord
state
leland
purely
speculative
jones
commonwealth
results
punishment
based
speculative
elements
state
lindsey
la
unquantifiable
factor
farris
state
supra
state
lindsey
supra
people
walker
jurek
texas
establish
goal
incapacitation
may
justify
death
penalty
question
addressed
jurek
petitioner
jurek
attack
texas
capital
sentencing
scheme
ground
rather
contended
scheme
prevent
arbitrary
capricious
infliction
death
penalty
rejected
attack
procedures
prescribed
texas
scheme
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
jj
white
joined
burger
rehnquist
concurring
judgment
decide
substantive
question
whether
prediction
future
dangerousness
proper
criterion
determining
whether
defendant
live
die
matters
jury
california
actually
eliminate
possibility
commutation
death
sentence
may
commuted
well
briggs
instruction
omits
mention
fact
majority
acknowledges
ante
exist
compelling
reasons
defendant
wish
forced
bring
jury
attention
see
supra
state
courts
consistently
held
juries
may
permitted
circumvent
actions
branches
government
preemptive
imposition
death
penalty
see
murray
state
crim
app
consideration
commutation
subverts
jury
properly
assigned
role
andrews
state
ark
consideration
commutation
takes
jury
far
afield
proper
purpose
prerogative
broyles
commonwealth
jury
anticipates
acts
executive
branch
circumvent
infringes
upon
prerogatives
state
lindsey
jury
improperly
governor
duly
authorized
power
jones
commonwealth
california
state
statute
requiring
jury
instructed
consider
possibility
commutation
jurisdictions
issue
generally
arisen
either
jury
inquired
parole
commutation
defendant
contended
prosecution
improperly
argued
issue
jury
decisions
concern
jury
sentencing
capital
cases
although
concern
noncapital
cases
decisions
found
error
harmless
none
cases
find
jury
instruction
concerning
parole
commutation
harmless
see
grady
state
crim
app
noncapital
westbrook
state
ark
jones
state
smith
state
del
paramore
state
prosecutor
argument
improper
reversible
error
vacated
grounds
gilreath
state
cert
denied
people
szabo
farmer
commonwealth
state
brown
la
poole
state
md
state
thomas
mo
grandsinger
state
neb
prosecutorial
argument
improper
reversible
error
cert
denied
summers
state
reaffirming
serrano
state
instructed
jury
assume
life
without
parole
means
exactly
state
conklin
state
jones
mckee
state
crim
app
noncapital
state
leland
aff
commonwealth
aljoe
state
goolsby
cert
denied
farris
state
noncapital
clanton
state
tex
crim
app
clanton
commonwealth
state
todd
state
lindsey
noncapital
state
carroll
wyo
contrary
majority
suggestion
ante
decisions
rest
much
broader
grounds
interpretation
particular
state
statutes
massa
state
ohio
app
state
jackson
brewer
state
ind
instance
georgia
legislature
overruled
prior
decisions
contrary
enacting
statute
forbidding
jury
argument
concerning
commutation
parole
code
ann
see
strickland
state
cases
discussed
therein
new
jersey
reversed
line
decisions
approved
jury
consideration
commutation
parole
state
white
tennessee
invalidated
statute
required
juries
instructed
parole
felony
cases
farris
state
supra
see
also
andrews
state
ark
disapproving
earlier
decisions
permitting
judge
asked
jurors
inform
possibility
reduction
sentence
justice
blackmun
dissenting
join
parts
ii
justice
marshall
opinion
dissent
understood
issue
case
whether
state
constitutionally
may
instruct
jury
governor
power
commute
sentence
life
without
parole
issue
involves
jury
consideration
probability
action
incumbent
governor
future
governors
instead
redefines
issue
terms
dangerousness
respondent
issue
involves
jury
consideration
probability
respondent
commit
acts
violence
future
ante
justice
marshall
ante
justice
stevens
post
forcefully
point
two
questions
relate
neither
state
california
solitary
dissenter
state
ventured
argument
issue
actually
presented
important
one
may
arguments
supportive
instruction
however
chooses
present
none
instead
approves
briggs
instruction
substituting
intellectual
sleight
hand
legal
analysis
kind
appellate
review
compounds
original
unfairness
instruction
thereby
rule
law
disservice
dissent
justice
stevens
dissenting
rule
law
required
hear
case
granted
certiorari
least
four
members
determined
matter
discretion
review
constitutionality
briggs
instruction
represent
wise
use
scarce
resources
certiorari
granted
case
informed
respondent
briggs
instruction
unique
california
requires
juries
instructed
selectively
governor
power
commute
life
without
parole
sentences
informed
accurately
overwhelming
number
jurisdictions
condemn
comment
whatsoever
capital
case
governor
power
commute
statement
followed
list
citations
decisions
brief
opposition
see
ante
justice
marshall
dissenting
facts
shed
illuminating
light
perception
discretion
exercised
even
one
agree
conclusion
instruction
violate
defendant
procedural
rights
nevertheless
fair
ask
harm
done
administration
justice
state
courts
california
left
undisturbed
determination
clear
omission
instruction
conceivably
prejudice
prosecutor
legitimate
interests
surely
character
offense
character
offender
death
proper
penalty
omission
comment
governor
power
commute
life
sentence
preclude
jury
returning
proper
verdict
true
instruction
may
make
difference
life
death
case
scales
otherwise
evenly
balanced
reason
instruction
given
reason
giving
existence
rarely
exercised
power
commutation
absolutely
nothing
defendant
culpability
capacity
rehabilitation
governor
power
commute
entirely
different
relevant
aggravating
circumstance
may
legitimately
impel
jury
toward
voting
death
penalty
see
ante
briggs
instruction
greater
justification
instruction
jury
scales
evenly
balanced
remember
murders
committed
people
whose
names
begin
initial
letter
matter
trivial
impact
instruction
may
fundamentally
wrong
presiding
judge
trial
personify
evenhanded
administration
justice
tell
jury
indirectly
sure
doubt
concerning
proper
penalty
resolved
favor
certain
method
preventing
defendant
ever
walking
streets
concludes
opinion
solemnly
noting
sit
judges
legislators
wisdom
decision
permit
juror
consideration
possible
commutation
best
left
ante
ask
due
respect
justices
voted
grant
certiorari
case
allow
wisdom
state
judges
prevail
california
especially
taken
position
consistent
state
judges
alabama
arkansas
colorado
delaware
florida
georgia
illinois
kentucky
louisiana
maryland
missouri
nebraska
nevada
new
jersey
north
carolina
oklahoma
oregon
pennsylvania
south
carolina
tennessee
texas
virginia
washington
west
virginia
wyoming
repeat
rule
law
commanded
grant
certiorari
state
required
follow
california
precedent
permitted
stand
nothing
interest
facilitating
imposition
death
penalty
california
justified
exercise
discretion
review
judgment
california
interest
opinion
sufficient
warrant
review
validity
jury
instruction
wisdom
giving
instruction
plainly
matter
best
left
reasons
stated
parts
ii
justice
marshall
opinion
disagree
decision
merits
even
correct
merits
still
firmly
disagree
decision
grant
certiorari
therefore
respectfully
dissent