People v. Terry

1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Capital Defense Weekly, October 22, 2001

    Capital Defense NewsletterOctober 22, 2001

    . might prevent them from voting for the death penalty"); Cook v. State, 255 Ga. 565, 340 S.E.2d 843, 860 & n.11 (1986) (approving "sentencing-phase argument on 'whimsical doubt'"); People v. Haskett, 30 Cal.3d 841, 640 P.2d 776, 792, 180 Cal. Rptr. 640 (1982) (accused permitted "to awaken any residual doubt the jurors might have had about his guilt"); Stout v. State, 693 P.2d 617, 628 (Okla. Cr. 1985) (the penalty phase "is for additional evidence and in no way excludes from consideration on sentence the matters heard on the issue of guilt or innocence"); State v. Jeffers, 135 Ariz. 404, 661 P.2d 1105, 1132 (1983) (approving use of consideration of sodium amythal "truth serum" evidence at the penalty phase to show that defendant was innocent, although such evidence would not have met admissibility standards at the guilt phase); State v. Teague, 680 S.W.2d 785, 788 (Tenn. 1984) ("parties at capital re-sentencing are entitled to offer evidence relating to circumstances of the crime"); People v. Terry, 61 Cal. 2d 137, 390 P.2d 381, 387, 37 Cal. Rptr. 605, (1964); see also Smith v. Wainwright, 741 F.2d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1087, 105 S.Ct. 1853, 85 L.Ed. 2d 150 (1985); see also Johnson v. Wainwright, 806 F.2d 1479, 1482-83 (1986), rehearing denied, 810 F.2d 208 (11th Cir. 1987); Aldrich v. Wainwright, 777 F.2d 630, 639 (11th Cir. 1985); Smith v. Balkcom, 660 F.2d 573, 580-81, modified, 677 F.2d 20 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), cert.