A recent article in the Western New England Law Review examines ways in which the rules of evidence and procedures at capital sentencing trials are less rigorous than those applied at the guilt-phase of the trial. In capital sentencing hearings, evidence is permitted that would not be admissible to prove guilt. The defendant does not receive traditional trial protections at the sentencing trial. For example, hearsay may be received by the jury during sentencing, but is generally inadmissible at the guilt phase of the trial because it is considered unreliable. In his article, “When Trial and Punishment Intersect: New Defects in the Death Penalty,” Alexander Bunin, the Federal Public Defender of the Districts of Northern New York & Vermont and Adjunct Professor at Albany Law School, concludes that recent Supreme Court decisions, such as Ring v. Arizona, which identifies part of the capital sentencing process as properly belonging to the guilt-or-innocence process, cast doubt upon the reliability and constitutionality of current capital sentencing procedures. (26 Western New England Law Review 2 (2004)). See Supreme Court and Resources.

Citation Guide