No one knows how often gayness is raised by prosecutors as a snide implication, an unfounded assertion, or a fact that may or may not be relevant to the case. But it comes up with such frequency and in such predictable ways that the allegations of antigay bias cannot be dismissed. There are high barriers against injecting race into a trial, and rape-shield laws that prohibit introducing a victim's prior sexual history. But no such restrictions exist when it comes to homosexuality. As Burdine's trial illustrates, the rules against statements that might inflame a jury are not necessarily enforced when the defendant is gay.
Ambitious prosecutors are often free to play to stereotypical beliefs about homosexuals.
And they have reason to single out gay defendants when deciding which cases might convince a jury to opt for execution. After all, a death sentence is never mandatory. No matter how heinous the crime, a jury can choose to spare the murderer's life. There's no legal formula for who gets the death penalty, and anyone who seems outside the bounds of what's acceptable is more likely to end up being executed. Race, class, and reduced mental capacity all play a major role in capital punishment.