486 U.S. 367 (1988) Cited 989 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that “the risk that the death penalty will be imposed in spite of factors which may call for a less severe penalty is unacceptable and incompatible with the commands of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments”
Upholding admissibility of expert testimony offered to establish defendant's state of mind that did not directly relate to pending criminal offenses but concerned abused defendant's relationship with victim
In People v. Arias, 913 P.2d 980, 1042 (Cal. 1996), for instance, defendant argued that California's death penalty scheme "violate[d] the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment because it allows prosecutors 'standardless' discretion to decide when to seek the death penalty and thus leads to arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty.