Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 306.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 139 (2010) 

145 

Opinion of the Court 

the  Court  held  that  the  sentencing  proceeding  violated  the 
Constitution.  486 U. S., at 374–375. 

B 

In  evaluating  the  Court  of  Appeals’  determination  here, 
we have examined the jury instructions and verdict forms at 
issue  in  Mills  and  compared  them  with  those  used  in  the 
present case.  In the Mills sentencing phase, the trial judge 
instructed  the  jury  to  ﬁll  out  a  verdict  form  that  had  three 
distinct parts.  Section I set forth a list of 10 speciﬁc aggra­
vating  circumstances  next  to  which  were  spaces  where  the 
jury  was  to  mark  “yes”  or  “no.”  Just  above  the  list,  the 
form said: 

“Based  upon  the  evidence  we  unanimously  ﬁnd  that 
each  of  the  following  aggravating  circumstances  which 
is marked ‘yes’ has been proven . . .  and  each aggravat­
ing  circumstance  which  is  marked  ‘no’  has  not  been 
proven . . . .”  Id., at 384–385 (emphasis added; internal 
quotation marks omitted). 

Section II  set forth  a list of  eight potentially  mitigating cir­
cumstances (seven speciﬁc circumstances and the eighth des­
ignated  as  “other”)  next  to  which  were  spaces  where  the 
jury  was  to  mark  “yes”  or  “no.”  Just  above  the  list  the 
form said: 

“Based  upon  the  evidence  we  unanimously  ﬁnd  that 
each  of  the  following  mitigating  circumstances  which 
is  marked  ‘yes’  has  been  proven  to  exist  .  .  .  and  each 
mitigating  circumstance  marked 
‘no’  has  not  been 
proven . . . .”  Id., at 387 (emphasis added; internal quo­
tation marks omitted). 

Section  III  set  forth  the  overall  balancing  question,  along 
with spaces for the jury to mark “yes” or “no.”  It said: 

“Based  on  the  evidence  we  unanimously  ﬁnd  that  it 
has  been  proven . . .  that  the  mitigating  circumstances