Opinion ID: 2967883
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Higgs’s Life in Prison

Text: We summarily reject Higgs’s final claim that the government improperly argued that life imprisonment would be soft because Higgs could go to school, have a job, establish friendships, talk on the phone to his friends and family, eat food, watch television, read the newspaper, and generally establish a life within the prison community. We find no impropriety in the government’s argument, much of which followed similar, but opposing, notions argued by Higgs that life in prison meant life in a high security place of confinement where Higgs would be continuously monitored. In any event, we would not grant him relief. The remarks did not so prejudicially affect Higgs’s substantial rights so as to deprive him of a fair sentencing hearing. G. Passion and Prejudice The FDPA requires us to consider whether the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3595(c)(1), in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. In undertaking this duty, we look to the record to see if these factors motivated the jury’s recommendation of the death penalty, including an analysis of the aggravating factors to see if the jury had an abundance of evidence to support imposition of the death penalty. Barnette, 211 F.3d at 821. Higgs argues that the emotional content of this case was so extreme as to render his death sentences invalid under this provision. We disagree. We find no basis upon which to conclude that the jury imposed the death penalty under improper influence. [W]hile [death penalty] proceedings must be free from passion, prejudice, and other arbitrary factors, a death penalty case will not be emotionless. Id. Here, we find no indication that 70 UNITED STATES v. HIGGS the jury was swayed by emotion rather than reason in deciding to impose the sentences of death upon Higgs. H. Cruel and Unusual Punishment Higgs preserves for appellate review his argument that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment under all circumstances and, therefore, violates the Eight Amendment. As acknowledged by Higgs, this argument is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. See McCleskey, 481 U.S. at 300-03; Gregg, 428 U.S. at 187; Jones, 132 F.3d at 242.