Cite as: 525 U. S. 141 (1998)
Stevens, J., dissenting
mutation power was unconstitutional and "would likely have prevented the jury from giving due effect to Cole-man's mitigating evidence." 2 Although the judge did not
2 App. to Pet. for Cert. 149. The District Court concluded more fully: "Coleman was entitled, under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, to a sentencing jury that could fairly review the evidence he presented to show that he should not be sentenced to death. See e. g., Boyde [v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 377-378 (1990)]; Lockett [v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 605 (1978)]. Considered in light of the prosecution argument, the aggravating evidence and the record as a whole, the commutation instruction would likely have prevented the jury from giving due effect to Coleman's mitigating evidence. See Hamilton [v. Vasquez, 17 F. 3d 1149, 1163 (CA9), cert. denied, 512 U. S. 1220 (1994)]; cf. Boyde, 494 U. S. at 370.
"Believing that the governor could, single-handedly, render Coleman eligible for parole, for example, the jury would have found it difficult to give 'a reasoned moral response' to testimony about Coleman's temper and his history of incarceration that was introduced to explain his behavior. See Hamilton, 17 F. 3d at 1160. During its deliberation, the jury requested a copy of Coleman's prior felony convictions, which [suggests] that it gave them considerable weight. RT 1068-72. Yet the instruction prevented the jury from learning that Coleman's prior convictions not only weighed against him in aggravation but also made parole considerably less likely. See [California v. Ramos, 463 U. S. 992, 1008 (1983)] (penalty-phase jury may consider many factors in determining whether death is the appropriate punishment); see also Penry [v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 324 (1989)] (penalty-phase instruction unconstitutionally allowed jury to give aggravating, but not mitigating, effect to evidence of petitioner's mental retardation).
"The need for accurate parole-related instructions is heightened when the prosecution argues the issue of a defendant's future dangerousness. See Simmons [v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, 164 (1994)] (due process violated when trial court refused to give accurate parole-eligibility instruction to rebut prosecution's argument about future dangerousness). Here, the prosecutor built his penalty-phase case around Coleman's prior felonies and his propensity for violence, both in and out of prison. His closing argument, in particular, told the jury that Coleman 'has already demonstrated what he is capable of doing on numerous occasions to each and every one of us. . . . He is manipulative, he is dangerous to all of us.' RT 1011-12, 1029-30; see Simmons, [512 U. S., at 157] (prosecutor alluded to future dangerousness by arguing that death sentence would be 'a re-
149
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007