Document: 527 U.S. 373119 S.Ct. 2090144 L.Ed.2d 370 JONES v. UNITED STATES (97-9361)SUPREME COURT OF THE STATES119 2090 No. 97 9361 LOUIS JONES, PETITIONER ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR FIFTH CIRCUIT [June 21, 1999] Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of Court, except as to Part III A*. 1 Petitioner was sentenced death for committing a kidnaping resulting in victim. His sentence imposed under Federal Death Penalty Act 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 3591 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. III). We are presented with three questions: whether petitioner entitled an instruction effect jury deadlock; there is reasonable likelihood that led believe would receive court-imposed less than life imprisonment event they could not reach unanimous recommendation; submission two allegedly duplicative, vague, overbroad nonstatutory aggravating factors harmless error. answer "no" first questions. As third, we view no error allowing consider challenged factors. Assuming error, arguendo, think it clear such harmless. 2 * Louis Jones, Jr., kidnaped Private Tracie Joy McBride at gunpoint from Goodfellow Air Force Base San Angelo, Texas. He brought her his house sexually assaulted her. Soon thereafter, drove bridge just outside where he repeatedly struck head tire iron until she died. administered blows severe force that, when victim's body found, medical examiners observed large pieces skull had been driven into cranial cavity or were missing. 3 The Government charged with, inter alia, victim, violation 1201(a)(2), offense punishable by death. Exercising its discretion seq., decided seek latter sentencing option. tried District Court Northern Texas found guilty jury. 4 then conducted separate hearing pursuant §3593. initial matter, required find requisite intent, see §3591(a)(2); concluded intentionally killed victim inflicted serious bodily injury Even on finding however, defendant death-eligible unless also finds has proved beyond doubt least one statutory set forth §3592. See §3593(e). Because homicide, prove 16 3592(c) III) (different other crimes §§3592(b), (d)). unanimously agreed caused during commission another crime, §3592(c)(1), committed especially heinous, cruel, depraved manner, §3592(c)(6).1 5 Once became death-eligible, decide should sentence. In making selection decision, requires all mitigating determine former outweigh (or, if factors, alone sufficient warrant sentence). §§3591(a), 3592, 3593(e). Act, more exacting proof ones although must agree established existence factor doubt, §3593(c), may weighing process so long juror preponderance evidence, §§3593(c), (d). addition aggravators petitioner's death-eligibility, variety2 proved: impact evidence vulnerability evidence.3 10 11 proposed seven jurors wrote raised Special Findings Form.4 6 After recommended be App. 57 58. accordance jury's recommendation §3594. United States Appeals Fifth Circuit affirmed 132 F.3d 232 (1998). granted certiorari, 525 ___ (1998), now affirm. II 7 question consequences deadlock. requested, relevant part, following instruction: 8 "In event, after due deliberation reflection, unable decision imposed, you advise me I will impose without possibility release. 9 . [a of] Life Without Possibility Release Death, but Release, report vote Release." 14 15. view, Eighth Amendment instructed their inability agree. alternatively argues invoke our supervisory power over federal courts require given. 12 Before turn argument, interpretation calls attention. held did err refusing requested because substantively correct. F.3d, 242 243. According Appeals, §3593(b)(2)(C), which provides new shall impaneled guilt phase discharged "good cause," impanel second hold Id., interprets statute same way (although reading nuanced) urges judgment below this ground. 13 Petitioner, reads differently. whenever reaches result verdict recommending release, duty falls upon district court §3594, reads: "Upon section 3593(e) accordingly. Otherwise, any lesser authorized law. Notwithstanding law, maximum term imprisonment, release." 15 Petitioner's argument based construction "[o]therwise." means jury, retiring deliberations, reports itself verdict, determination passes court. dissent concludes, post, 15, better one. phrase cause" §3593(b)(2)(C) plainly encompasses events disqualification, cannot read expansively include failure decision. Nevertheless, does 17 To sure, have said arbitrarily. See, e.g., Buchanan Angelone, 522 269, 275 order capital scheme pass constitutional muster, perform narrowing function respect class persons eligible penalty ensure decisions rest individualized inquiry. Ibid. bearing what called "eligibility phase" process. "selection phase," cases satisfy requirement inquiry, allow "broad inquiry" "constitutionally evidence." 276. argue, nor he, Court's give prevented considering evidence. theory, instruct deadlock rise problem different sort: "affirmatively misled regarding role process." Romano Oklahoma, 512 1, (1994). way, affirmatively refusal instruction. truth matter Rather, speaks happens fulfill deliberations break down produce recommendation. clear, appears arbitrary within meaning given bit information might possibly influence individual juror's voting behavior. That contention merit. never suggested, example, breakdown deliberative On contrary, "[t]he very object system secure unanimity comparison views, arguments among themselves." Allen States, 164 492, 501 (1896).5 further recognized proceeding, "a strong interest having express conscience community ultimate death." Lowenfield Phelps, 484 231, 238 (1988) (citation omitted). charge sort well undermining governmental interest.6 19 similarly decline exercise powers every case. drafting Congress chose Cf. §3593(f) (district "shall justified, race, color, religious beliefs, national origin, sex recommend crime be"). point us New Jersey Supreme requiring, court's authority, informed nonunanimity. Ramseur, 106 N. J. 123, 304 315, 524 A. 2d 188, 280 286 (1987). Of course, Jersey's practice relevance persuade. Several declined similar North Carolina McCarver, 341 C. 364, 394, 462 S. E. 25, 42 (1995); Brogie 695 P.2d 538, 547 (Okla. Crim. 1985); Calhoun Maryland, 297 Md. 563, 593 595, 468 45, 58 60 (1983); Coulter Alabama, 438 So. 336, 346 (Ala. 1982); Justus Virginia, 220 Va. 971, 979, 266 87, 92 93 (1980). reasoning Virginia far persuasive light render recommendation: 20 "The properly refused offered told agreement appropriate punishment, dismiss While correct statement law concerned procedural subject It open invitation avoid responsibility disagree." 2d, 92. 21 legitimate reasons instructing deadlock, congressional silence, sought Shannon 573, 587 B 22 judge-imposed necessary erroneous impression. Moreover, contends alleged confusion independently warrants reversal Due Process Clause, Amendment, itself. grounds claim assertion sentences materially untrue assumptions, accurate information, available options constitutes "arbitrary factor" §3595(c)(2)(A). 23 put proper context, briefly review instructions procedures used trial. explaining those gave pertaining 24 "Based consideration, vote, death, some 25 "If conclude exist sufficiently exist, absence themselves justify Keep mind, regardless your findings 26 imposition sentence, If deciding make, release recommended." 43 44. 27 provided four forms record recommendation.7 forms, choice form depended 28 self-explanatory: Decision Form A government failed intent part factor. imposed. C D because: (1) do exist; (2) (3) 29 "Decision imposed." 47 48. 30 maintains combination Forms use imprisonment.8 scope shaped preserved objection party generally assign fails before retires "stat[e] distinctly objects objection." Fed. Rule Proc. 30. These timeliness specificity requirements apply 3595(c)(2)(C); Rules 54(a). They enable trial instructional mistakes help burdens unnecessary retrial. directed motion can preserve Leary 395 6, 32 (1969), objections completed not. Singer 380 24, 38 (1965); Lopez 373 427, 436 (1963); cf. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 150, 239 (1940). Nor request actually judges speculate sorts implied through issue rulings "implied" intends raise. Such rule contradict 30's mandate state objection. 31 voice raises retired. 33. literally bar instead appellate conduct limited plain 52(b); Johnson 520 461, 465 466 (1997); Olano, 507 725, 731 732 (1993); Lopez, supra, 437; Namet 179, 190 191 (1963). creates exception. relies language providing remand case "the passion, prejudice, factor." petitioner, thus resentencing even This rests untenable Act. explicitly announce exception plain-error review, create inferred overall scheme. Statutory context "gathers words around it." Jarecki G. D. Searle & 367 303, 307 (1961); Gustafson Alloyd 513 561, 575 (1995). Here, subsection warranted proceedings involved legal requiring appeal rules criminal procedure." §3595(c)(2)(C). makes timely intend equate broad §3595(c)(2)(A) drain §3595(c)(2)(C) independent meaning. 33 instructions, then, Under relief plain, affects substantial rights. Johnson, 467; 732. Appellate doctrine, circumscribed 52(b) sparingly. Young, 470 (1985); Frady, 456 152, 163, n. (1982); Henderson Kibbe, 431 145, 154 (1977) ("It rare improper conviction made court"). An only "seriously affect[s] fairness, integrity, public reputation judicial proceedings." (internal quotation marks omitted); 15; Atkinson, 157, 160 (1936). 34 depends premise short satisfying occurred. considered claims ambiguous confusion. Victor Nebraska, 511 (1994); Estelle McGuire, 502 62 (1991); Boyde California, 494 (1990). standard reviewing " 'whether applied way' violates Constitution." Estelle, 72 (quoting Boyde, 380); Victor, (applying direct conviction).9 35 There incorrectly. expressly inform simply "authorized law." select agreement. Instead, exhorted "to discuss punishment effort agreement, so." 46. 36 explicit nonunanimity, identifies several passages which, believes, support inference confused point. trains portion telling statement, coupled earlier references "lesser sentence" option, infer strengthened later bring back twelve favor specific penalty." 45. mention option strongly contradistinction options, unanimity. 37 parses these too finely. Our cautioned evaluated isolation entire charge. Bryan 184, 199 (1998); Park, 421 658, 674 (1975); Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 147 (1973); Boyd 271 104, 107 (1926). viewed lack ambiguity advances. 244. previously abstract cured conjunction instructions. Bryan, 199; 74 75. weaker received unanimous. Just prior admonition concern unambiguous vote. Specifically, stated "you sentence." 43. Other contrast, specified act unanimously. For circumstances, unlike unanimous.10 "unanimously" frequently. But alongside identifying need unanimous, identified believed cause ambiguities explanatory stresses fact (lesser recommendation), (death sentence) (life release), contain "by vote" foreperson's signature. features D, according nonunanimity accompanying respecting C, unanimity, thereby increasing 39 With aspect "[a]lthough standing persuaded created clarified instruction." 245. exhortation attempt 46, make doubtful thought compelled employ disagreement. 40 places much weight Although contained space signature, like others, "We ," signaling represented 59. elsewhere, foreperson signed indicate special doubt. 51 53. nonunanimity.11 41 assuming, occurred (and plain), show affected Any allayed 44). presumed followed Shannon, U.S., 585; Richardson Marsh, 481 200, 206 lingering doubts about therefore, aside concerns either assuming necessarily worked detriment. likely jurors, loathe compromised Where uncertain, meet burden showing Romano, 14. namely, disregarded judge's undue certain rejecting noted "[i]t seems equally plausible inclined them speculation recommendation, indeterminate outcome proceeding 676; 437. Apart claimed 2, overbroad, duplicative 44 correctly recognized, 250, permits juries relating personal characteristics emotional murder family Payne Tennessee, 808, 827 (1991) ("A State legitimately reason treat differently treated"). dispute general consideration. Reply Brief unconstitutional, agreed, 250 251, ultimately ruled Government's ground id., 251 252. 45 here renews constitutionally valid. At oral suggested comes assumption invalid cross-appeal question. Tr. Oral Arg. 25. prevailing party, defend below. El Paso Natural Gas Co. Neztsosie, 526 ___, ____ (1999) (slip op., 4); Northwest Airlines, Inc. County Kent, 510 355, 364 (1994) cross-petition below, seeks preserve, change, judgment"). certiorari rephrasing questions third "whether appeals doubt" presumes assume erroneous. 27. convinced reformulated fairly included "[w]hether doubt," incorrect holding done call attention planned argue valid petitioning stage. concede invalid, Opposition 22, absent concession, presented.12 46 address impermissibly duplicative. reasoned 'personal characteristics,' [nonstatutory aggravator] 3(C), includes 'young age, slight stature, background, unfamiliarity,' asked 3(B)." 250. problem, thought, duplication "double counting" Following Tenth McCullah, 76 1087, 1111 (1996), scheme, tendency skew risk arbitrary, 251. Circuit's words, thumb scale "[i]f weigh twice." passed theory advanced McCullah13 here. What skewed considers Stringer Black, 503 222, (1992). Circuits) quite proposition "duplicative," skewed, therefore invalid. 48 accepting, sake nevertheless problems application "personal characteristics" 3(C) obviously listed 3(B) "young unfamiliarity Angelo" went refer family. family, natural understand aspects character personality miss most. More important, extent arising how drafted, entirely areas aggravation clearly while captured uniqueness Record 2733 2734 ("[Y]ou [the victim's] young Angelo area. She barely five feet tall [and] weighs approximately 100 pounds. [She is] ideal victim"); effects instant You heard woman, mother, friends knew special, unique, loving, caring, lot offer world"). such, understood 3(B), whole best, eliminated "should count number greater [but rather] value each 49 incorrectly unconstitutionally vague. "fail[ed] guide discretion, [to] distinguish murder." relying Maynard Cartwright, 486 356, 361 362 (1988), terms 'background,' 'unfamiliarity' definition left open-ended discretion." 50 Ensuring infected bias caprice "controlling objective examine eligibility vagueness." Tuilaepa 967, 973 vagueness "quite deferential." core capable understanding, muster. Assessed deferential standard, surely difficulty understanding designed ask vulnerable attack. comprehending traits family.14 written somewhat wrong definition, 251; explained, absolutely meant.15 Finally, overbroad. "fairly circumstance applies Arave Creech, 463, 474 (1993). not, specifically important purposes sets victims often chosen vulnerability. seem, fall Amendment's proscription against correct; were, did. though concepts case, particular inherently individualized. And sentencer circumstances penalty. Tuilaepa, 976. 52 common importance stages neutral principled guard decision." 973. So principle disturbed. offended Constitution. 53 any, loose factors; subjects sentencer's loosely drafted indeed 54 Harmless-error performed ways. choose factor, reached precisely defined. Clemons Mississippi, 738, 753 754 analysis, returned supposedly non-statutory factors: 55 "After removing offensive balance, eleven whether, submitted hearing, placed great emphasis Jones kidnapping; manner torture physical abuse Form, ceased leaving powerless Therefore, ability hinged Conversely, mix, remaining jurors. Consequently, jury." 56 analysis perfunctory infirm. largely passage Clemons: "Under detailed explanation giving 'especially heinous' harmless." (emphasis added). Clemons, facts. There, "especially heinous" determined robbery pecuniary gain. emphasized little aggravator. 753. Despite this, Mississippi was: 'We likewise atrocious cruel" circumstance.' State, 535 1354, 1364 (Miss. 1988)). understandably "detailed record" circumstances. Sochor Florida, 504 527, 540 (1992) (there adopt formulaic indication" scrutiny). harmless-error perfunctory, alternative mode §3595(c)(2) (federal basis errors doubt). Had defined writing, see, 2734, infirmity written. satisfied it, conclusion writing. 59 foregoing reasons, affirmed. ordered. Notes 61 *. Scalia joins opinion. 1. phrased read: "2(A). McBride, Kidnapping." "2(C). McBride." 52. 63 2. "nonstatutory described 3592. Section notice exists." Pursuant §3593(a), decides penalty, provide proposes justifying 64 3. "3(B). McBride's Texas." "3(C). constitute offense." 65 4. (along brackets) follows: "1. significant record." [6] "2. Jones' capacity appreciate wrongfulness defendant's conform significantly impaired, impaired defense charge." [2] "3. mental disturbance." [1] "4. subjected physical, sexual, child deprived parental protection needed)." [4] "5. served country Desert Storm, Grenada, years Army." [8] "6. well-behaved inmate." [3] "7. remorseful committed." "8. daughter harmed trauma father's execution." [9] "9. unusual internally generated duress stress time "10. suffered numerous neurological psychological disorders 56. Seven added ex-wife elaboration. 66 5. approved supplemental encourage reporting deadlocked engage 501, juries, 237 241 (1988). 67 6. insignificant Courts addressed question, aware, uniform Constitution Coe Bell, 161 320, 339 340 (CA6 1998); Green French, 143 865, 890 (CA4 Chandler, 996 F.2d 1073, 1088 1089 (CA11 1993); Evans Thompson, 881 117, 123 124 1989). Indeed, Circuit, alternative, 232, 245 68 7. "DECISION FORM B. consideration recommend, 69 8. alone, constituted reversible parties possible 19; 13, 2; 1201. below; level 246 248. 70 9. concedes advancing claim, Andres 333 740, 752 (1948), lenient directly. foreclose Andres. decisions, including Andres, "less clear" articulating single workable evaluating 378. supply formulation kind question," announced "reasonable likelihood" standard. 379. noting "[i]n settle 'reasonable likelihood' many phrasings Court." 72, 71 10. "You recall it. Quite opposite true regard members member who established." 11. take cognizance affidavits prepared One affidavit, attached motion, executed investigator defender contacted defender's office. 68. reconsider denying trial, 78 80. rely undermine 246. raise presented, them. ruling Circuit. 14.1(a); Berkemer McCarty, 420, 443, (1984). 73 12. waived. Post, 17, 24. Ginsburg Caterpillar Lewis, 519 (1996): 15.2, nonjurisdictional respondent's brief opposition petition writ 'may deemed waived.' 75, "predicate intelligent resolution presented." Ohio Robinette, 33, (1996) Caterpillar, 13. instances, treated presented. certainly Assessing (including all) essential here, briefs argument." By looks position, good discretion. Roberts Galen Va., Inc., 249, 253 254 (per curiam), "claims [we did] appear developed assess them," South Central Bell Telephone op. 10), respondent merits "so far-reaching argument" "[w]e normally expect [of it]," when, subsequent overlap "necessarily subsumes" other. Cooks Ward, 165 1283, 1289 75 vague race 3(C). remainder fail possibility. Act's command §3593(f), reaching 47. Jurors reiterate 967 few, 356 (whether atrocious, cruel"), upholding challenges, 974 (collecting cases). Ginsburg, J., dissenting SUPREME 77 79 whom Stevens Souter join, Breyer Parts I, II, III, V, dissenting. 80 1994 (FDPA), 3598 III), establishes complex regime applicable potentially pathmarking, FDPA. Two questions, comprehend objections, prime 81 First, specifies offense, exactly that? Or, stand despite misleading specifically, judge prison? Second, sentence? permitted decision? 82 confronted resolved both prosecution. tolerated vague.1 lower courts' disposition flawed proceedings, tolerance flaws, disregard most basic guide: "[A]ccurate indispensable prerequisite [jury's] live die." Gregg Georgia, 428 153, (1976) (joint Stewart, Powell, Stevens, JJ.). "indispensable prerequisite" reverse accurately trier. 83 authorizing small category 1988,2 enacted comprehensive legislation 1994. FDPA, 108 Stat. 1959.3 Applicable existing newly declared offenses, 3591; 1970 1982, §§60005 60024,4 FDPA prescribes penalty-phase procedures; principally, defendants covered offense. 3593.5 84 homicide cases, instructs, respond sequentially inquiries; three. determines killing intentional engagement life-threatening activity. 3591(a)(2).6 Government-proposed nonstatutory, §3593(d).7 Third, Government, "sufficiently outweigh" or, others tending individually juror; "beyond "preponderance §§3592(a), (c), 3593(d). numeric; perceived significance, number, decision.8 85 Jr.'s atrocious; Jones's precipitous fortune self-governance termination 22-year Army career. February 18, 1995, forcibly abducted course abduction, Michael Alan Peacock handgun, him unconscious. Thereafter, located miles Angelo. (CA5 1998). 86 convicted resulting, 1201(a)(2). 238. punished 87 close no. advised rather justice demands Mr. 13.9 imposed," judge, "impose 14.10 Proposed nos. 5, inartfully drawn, unquestionably convey information: objected, grounds, Government. 28. 88 rejected strike modify objected. be. 89 apparently close. urged. 238.11 Jones. ibid.12 deliberated day half returning 90 moved ground, supported postsentence statements, urged sentence; outcome, asserted, favored changed votes approve verdict. 68, maintained, hypothetical; backed up statements. 79. denied motion. 74, 81. 91 yield Jury stated, occasion automatic instead, declared, necessitate hung ha[s] affirmed, instructions." Next, entirety, "could non-unanimity held, fact, Evidence 606(b) 3593(c), verdicts [trial proceedings] equal hearings"). Nor, Appeals' conveying misinformation Noting takes account possibilities, 3593(e), authorizes sentences, §1201(a), acknowledged erred option: "[T]he substantive [kidnaping] precedence provisions" limits "plain" question; hence, "clearly law" place hearing. 94 challenge request. Texas," [her] family" "duplicative" other, "vague overbroad." upset 95 governing (without release) choice. introduced, erroneously, prospect, "some 44.13 "not concerned" be, "[t]hat [was] decide." clouded misinformation. out my concluding rendered unreliable. 96 jury: "[Y]ou 98 99 recommended. 101 102 Those misinformed intertwined respects: wrongly option;14 second, 103 248; ante, 1201, defines governs. nothing less, neither parole good-time credits reduce 14, ("[W]e (because kidnapping statute, [§]1201, sentence)."). provision, sentence," §3593(e), confine obvious, readily apparent, conspicuous." disagree rank misconstruction "plain error,"15 alter prescriptions.16 No existed score.17 104 nonexistent message came "bring release," possible, 44, "be [it] determine[d] ibid. nn. 9, apparent door open.18 105 is, least, tainted deliberations. 370, (1990) (where interpretation," "proper inquiry instruction" erroneously). recently noted, swayed toward believes otherwise serve prison. Simmons Carolina, 154, 163 (plurality opinion) ("[I]t threat society not."). switch ward off wanted, i.e., chance judge.19 Solicitor General, insists supporting death-prone 21; 246; 22. demur (say what) position. suffice potential confuse existed, tilted "introduce[d] uncertainty unreliability factfinding case." Beck 447 625, 643 "Capital game 'chicken,' turns happenstance 'life' 'death' in, unacceptable jurors." 8, obliged tell default "substantively [in]correct." 242.20 comprehended deadlocked, front purpose." 243.21 shot dispositive states recommends, continues: "Otherwise, 3594. 109 "[o]therwise" clause, sentencing, becomes operative deflected §3594 path "before purpose cause." Discharge reasonably cover guilt-phase (and, extension, penalty-phase) disqualification to, exposure prejudicial extrinsic illness. provision encompass 110 refers "background rule" retrial rule. 29. proceedings. own survey laws shows, once deadlocked. 32; 1a 6a (identifying imposes possible); Acker Lanier, Law, Discretion, Capital Jury: Statutes Proposals Reform, L. Bull. 134, 169 ("In twenty-five twenty-nine final transformed 'lifelocked' results being parole." (footnotes omitted)). 111 Furthermore, adopted identical predecessor Anti-Drug Abuse 1988 construed 1086 1993) ("If [recommend death], defendant."); Pitera, 795 F. 546, 552 (EDNY 1992) ("Absent defendant.").22 House Report suggests construction. H. R. Rep. 467, p. 3594."). IV 112 Piled key aggravators, Texas" family." 250.23 both. 113 clarify "background" characteristics." Notably, aggravator age," "slight stature," "background," "unfamiliarity," 3(B). attribute genuine disagreement proposition. Double counting "creates (CA10 1996) ("Such double arbitrarily."). lapse inconsequential, factors." 252.24 114 hesitate assert confidence "elimination improperly affect balance." Barclay 463 939, 958 (1983). Adding overlapping disturbing conveyed charge, 'it difference removed death's side scale.' (1992)). V 115 face reconciled recognition Woodson 280, 305 opinion), "death qualitatively different." misperceptions legitimacy ensuing hinge counsel's shortfalls infection. vacate proceed accuracy superintendents demand. 116 States: Whether automatically imprisonment. doubt." __ I. fair 'principled,' indigent willingness overlook "loose drafting" consistently shows 19, 29; (adopting mentioned Opposition). 117 drug-related offenses. 848(e). "any [federal] provided," 3591(a)(2), repeal differs respects. 848(q)(4) (9) (mandatory appointment habeas counsel investigative expert services). 118 statutes between 1972 1988: Antihijacking 1974, §105, 411 413, repealed §6002, (air piracy); Criminal Law Procedure Technical Amendments 1986, §61, 3614 (witness killing); Department Defense Authorization §534, 634 635 (amending Uniform Military establish martials espionage). Earlier remained books, invoked Furman 408 (1972) hiatus adjudications. Little, Penalty: History Some Thoughts About Justice's Role, Ford. Urb. 347, 349, 372 (1999). 119 391, (estimating offenses). 120 defendant, approval moves 3593(b). 121 3591(a)(2) allows "if [sentencing] hearing": "(A) victim; "(B) resulted "(C) participated act, contemplating person taken intending lethal connection person, participants died act; "(D) engaged violence, knowing grave participation reckless human act." 122 lists "consider [by Government] 3592(c). Nonstatutory "may concerning §3593(a). 397 ("[Weighing] qualitative, quantitative, evaluation." part: "If, impartial execution, return fix Jones'[s] prison 125 "[I]f execution "Again, "Defendant's Objections Charge," "particularly direct[ed] attention" 126 aggravators: planning premeditation, 3592(c)(9); §3592(c)(5); posed future danger lives safety persons. kidnaping, §3592(c)(1); depraved, §3592(c)6); Texas; (4) 127 ten None eleventh, catch-all stating "other background militate penalty," 3592(a)(8), additional 239, 128 describes "[a] behavior," 8; rather, 'affirmatively misled,' 7, repeated conveyed. 129 compounded statement: press identification reversal. component less-than-life 130 (unobjected-to) amounted error." (objected-to) submit defense's "abuse discretion," legally correct, rested corrected false impression Cooter Gell Hartmarx Corp., 496 384, 405 (1990); (Order Denying Defendant's Motion Trial); 242. 131 16. referring reviewed error," discounting "invited," language. 246, propose language, 26, thing 17. footnote, recognize debate: Ante, times difficult why "cannot occurred." 133 18. rule, observes, repeats, '[a] relieved given.' Wright, Practice §484, 702 (2d 1982)); true, employed woodenly, ends designed, trap unwary." 699 701. apprised 134 19. precedent supports affirmation statements attesting inadmissible, apprehension grave, discount altogether. Jorgensen York Ice Machinery 432, 435 (CA2 1947) (L. Hand, J.) (while defects reversal, "this competent facts aside, concededly do"). 135 20. Misinformation, repeat harmful heart agree." judgment, obliged, minimum 136 21. maintained prosecutor, panel 41. once, maintained: obligation 137 Like "has 848(i)(1)(B)(iii), states, immediately "[o]therwise law," §848(l). binding 138 23. Counsel objected 139 argues, contrary conclusion, incorrectness aggravators. opposition, focused solely addresses argument. tighter rein tardy curiam); (1999); 15.2. evident treats issues independent. Ruling proceeds next concludes Either disposition. Hasting, 461 499, 506, 4, (1983) (holding was, error; explains assumed applied"); (Stevens, concurring) (Court question).

Category: 0