Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 190.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 15 (2009) 

29 

Stevens, J., concurring 

The  testimony  adduced  at  Belmontes’  sentencing  hearing 
described  his religious  conversion  and his  positive  contribu­
tions  to  a  youth  rehabilitation  program.  Neither  his  own 
testimony,  nor  that  of  the  two  ministers  and  the  other 
witnesses  who  testiﬁed  on  his  behalf,  made  any  attempt  to 
extenuate  the  severity  of  his  crime.  Their  testimony  did, 
however,  afford  the  jury  a  principled  basis  for  imposing  a 
sentence  other  than  death.  See  Ayers,  549  U. S.,  at  29–31 
(Stevens, J., dissenting).  A review of the entire record, es­
pecially  the  colloquy  between  six jurors  and  the  trial  judge, 
makes  it  clear  to  me  that  “the  jury  believed  that  the  law 
forbade it from giving that evidence any weight at all.”  Id., 
at 36–39.  I therefore remain convinced that in its initial re­
view  of  this  case,  the  Court  of  Appeals  correctly  set  aside 
Belmontes’ death sentence. 

The narrow question that is now before us is whether the 
additional mitigating evidence that trial counsel failed to un­
cover  would  have  persuaded  the  jury  to  return  a  different 
verdict.  The  evidence  trial  counsel  might  have  presented 
hardly  matters,  however,  because  in  my  view  the  conscien­
tious  jurors’  mistaken  understanding  of  the  law  would  have 
prevented  them  from  giving  that  additional  evidence  “any 
weight  at  all,”  id.,  at  39,  let  alone  controlling  weight.  De­
spite  my  strong  disagreement  with  the  Court’s  decision  to 
review  this  case  once  again,  I  nevertheless  agree  with  the 
Court’s conclusion that trial counsel’s failure to present addi­
tional  mitigating  evidence  probably  did  not  affect  the  out­
come of the trial.