Opinion ID: 1889733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Role of Mitigating Factors in the Analysis

Text: Third, Judge Baime recommends abandoning Professor Baldus's hierarchical structure of assigning cases according to the level of aggravation. Id. at 62. Judge Baime notes that it has become clear that the current structure does not accurately represent the hierarchy of death-sentencing frequencies. He proposes an alternative structure, ranking salient factors in descending order based upon the death-sentencing rates among all death-eligible defendants in a category. Id. at 63. Again, he urges a flexible approach with room for exceptions. Id. at 63-64. Judge Baime proposes that mitigating factors be introduced into the salient-factors test. Id. at 64-65. Acknowledging the difficulty in accurately representing the mitigating factors given that a unanimous jury need not find a factor in order for it to be present, as well as the fact that juries weigh mitigating factors differently, he nevertheless recommends that the salient-factors category be divided into low mitigation and high mitigation subcategories. Ibid. As originally contemplated, the salient-factors test was expected to include mitigation in that analysis. Marshall II, supra, 130 N.J. at 146, 613 A. 2d 1059. In order to channel the salient-factors analysis into a simpler reading of the data, we reject for now the incorporation of mitigating factors into the analysis. Judge Baime has recommended maintaining the principle of unique assignment because the number of aggravating factors is not particularly relevant in assessing deathworthiness.... Baime Report, supra, at 60. The same may be true for mitigating factors as predictors of the lack of culpability. Precedent-seeking review is better suited to handle the presence of mitigating factors.