1972

Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238: Court ruled that the death penal­ty, as applied, was an arbi­trary pun­ish­ment and thus uncon­sti­tu­tion­al under the 8th and 14th Amendments.

1976

Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S. 153: The Court held that Georgia’s new cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment pro­ce­dures (bifur­cat­ed tri­als and auto­mat­ic appeals) were in accor­dance with the 8th Amendment. 

Proffitt v. Florida 428 U.S. 242: The Court denied the petitioner’s claim that Florida’s cap­i­tal sen­tenc­ing pro­ce­dures were unconstitutional.

Jurek v. Texas 428 U.S. 262: The Court denied the petitioner’s claim that Texas’ cap­i­tal sen­tenc­ing pro­ce­dures were unconstitutional.

Woodson v. North Carolina 428 U.S. 280: The Court found that manda­to­ry death sen­tences for first-degree mur­der vio­late the 8th and 14th Amendments. 

Roberts v. Louisiana 428 U.S. 325: Mandatory death sen­tences for first-degree mur­der uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. See Woodson.

1977

Gardner v. Florida 430 U.S. 349: The Court held that a con­fi­den­tial pre-sen­tence report by the tri­al court vio­lat­ed the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments, find­ing that defen­dants have a right to reli­able pro­ce­dures at the sen­tenc­ing phase of a capital trial.

Coker v. Georgia 433 U.S. 584: The Court held that the 8th Amendment pro­hibits the imple­men­ta­tion of the death penal­ty for rape of an adult when the vic­tim is not killed.

1978

Lockett v. Ohio 438 U.S. 586: The Court ruled that sen­tenc­ing author­i­ties, whether a judge or a jury, must be able to con­sid­er every pos­si­ble mit­i­gat­ing fac­tor, rather than being lim­it­ed to a specific list.

Bell v. Ohio 438 U.S. 637: The Court vacat­ed a death sen­tence because the statute pre­clud­ed con­sid­er­a­tion of facts and cir­cum­stances prof­fered as mitigating circumstances. 

1979

Green v. Georgia 442 U.S. 95: The Court held that the exclu­sion of evi­dence at the sen­tenc­ing phase, based upon Georgia’s hearsay rule, was unconstitutional.

1980

Godfrey v. Georgia 446 U.S. 420: The Court found that Georgia’s statute includ­ed an aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stance that was applied in an uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly vague manner.

Beck v. Alabama 477 U.S. 625: The Court held that a death sen­tence may not be con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly imposed after a guilty ver­dict on a cap­i­tal offense if the jury was not per­mit­ted to con­sid­er a ver­dict of guilt to a less­er included offense. 

1981

Bullington v. Missouri 451 U.S. 430: The Court found that the impo­si­tion of a death sen­tence at a defen­dant second’s cap­i­tal tri­al, after the defen­dant was orig­i­nal­ly sen­tenced to life in prison, vio­lat­ed the Fifth Amendment’s dou­ble jeopardy clause.

1982

Eddings v. Oklahoma 455 U.S. 104: The Court found that the sen­tenc­ing court had vio­lat­ed the defendant’s rights when it refused to con­sid­er the defendant’s tur­bu­lent fam­i­ly his­to­ry as a mitigating factor.

Enmund v. Florida 458 U.S. 782: The Court held that the death penal­ty is not allowed for an accom­plice to a mur­der who does not direct­ly kill the vic­tim, unless that defen­dant attempt­ed or intend­ed to kill.

1983

Zant v. Stephens 465 U.S. 862: The Supreme Court affirmed Georgia Supreme Court’s rul­ing that the fail­ure of one aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stance does not inval­i­date a death sen­tence that is oth­er­wise ade­quate­ly sup­port­ed by oth­er aggravating circumstances.

Barefoot v. Estelle 463 U.S. 880: The Court held that psy­chi­atric tes­ti­mo­ny regard­ing future dan­ger­ous­ness of defen­dant was admis­si­ble at sen­tenc­ing hear­ing in a capital trial. 

Barclay v. Florida 463 U.S. 939: The Court upheld petitioner’s death sen­tence despite the tri­al judge’s inap­pro­pri­ate con­sid­er­a­tion of pri­or criminal history.

California v. Ramos 463 U.S. 992: The Court held that the Federal Constitution does not pro­hib­it an instruc­tion per­mit­ting a cap­i­tal sen­tenc­ing jury to con­sid­er the Governor’s pow­er to com­mute a life sen­tence with­out pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole.

Wainwright v. Goode 464 U.S. 78: The Court upheld a death sen­tence despite the State Court Judge’s reliance on aggra­vat­ing fac­tors not avail­able under state law. 

1984

Spaziano v. Florida 465 U.S. 447: The Court held that Florida’s law allow­ing a judge to over­ride the jury’s death rec­om­men­da­tion of life in prison did not con­sti­tute dou­ble jeop­ardy, and did not vio­late the con­sti­tu­tion­al require­ment of reli­a­bil­i­ty in capital sentencing.

Pulley v. Harris 465 U.S. 37: The Court held that there was no con­sti­tu­tion­al require­ment for a pro­por­tion­al­i­ty review of sen­tences in com­pa­ra­ble cas­es through­out a state.

1985

Caldwell v. Mississippi 472 U.S. 320: The Court found the prosecution’s clos­ing argu­ment, which sug­gest­ed that the respon­si­bil­i­ty for deter­min­ing the appro­pri­ate­ness of a death sen­tence rest­ed with the Mississippi Supreme Court, was incon­sis­tent with the 8th Amendment’s height­ened need for reli­a­bil­i­ty in the deter­mi­na­tion that death is the appropriate punishment.

Baldwin v. Alabama 472 U.S. 372: The Court held that Alabama’s death penal­ty stat­ue, which required jurors to return a non-bind­ing death sen­tence upon find­ing the defen­dant guilty of cer­tain aggra­vat­ed crimes, but allowed the tri­al judge to decide pun­ish­ment after inde­pen­dent con­sid­er­a­tion of defen­dant and crime, did not vio­late the 8th Amendment.

Glass v. Louisiana 471 U.S. 1080: The Court held that the use of elec­tro­cu­tion does not vio­late the Eighth Amendment.

1986

Cabana v. Bullock 474 U.S. 372: The Court held that the fact-find­ing required to prove that the defen­dant killed, attempt­ed to kill or intend­ed that a killing take place or that lethal force be used, need not be made by a fact-find­er at tri­al and sen­tenc­ing, but can be made by tri­al Courts or state appellate courts.

Skipper v. South Carolina 476 U.S. 1: The Court held that the exclu­sion of evi­dence that defen­dant has adjust­ed well to incar­cer­a­tion between arrest and tri­al vio­lates the hold­ing in Lockett v. Ohio.

Turner v. Murray 476 U.S. 28: The Court held that a defen­dant accused of an inter­ra­cial crime is enti­tled under 6th and 14th Amendments to have jurors informed of the race of the vic­tim and be ques­tioned on the issue of racial bias; refusal to do so would vacate the death sentence.

Lockhart v. McCree 476 U.S. 162: The Constitution does not pro­hib­it the removal for cause, pri­or to the guilt phase of a bifur­cat­ed cap­i­tal tri­al, of prospec­tive jurors whose oppo­si­tion to the death penal­ty is so strong that it would pre­vent or sub­stan­tial­ly impair the per­for­mance of their duties as jurors at the sen­tenc­ing phase of the trial.

Ford v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 399: The Court held that the exe­cu­tion of the insane was unconstitutional.

1987

Tison v. Arizona 481 U.S. 137: The Court held that death may be imposed upon a defen­dant who, with reck­less indif­fer­ence to the val­ue of human life, par­tic­i­pat­ed in a felony that result­ed in murder.

McCleskey v. Kemp 481 U.S. 279: The Court found that sta­tis­ti­cal evi­dence of a pro­found racial dis­par­i­ty in appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty, was insuf­fi­cient to inval­i­date defen­dan­t’s death sentence.

Booth v. Maryland 482 U.S. 496: The Court held that the intro­duc­tion of a Victim impact Statement at the sen­tenc­ing phase of a cap­i­tal mur­der tri­al vio­lates the Eighth Amendment, and there­fore the Maryland statute is invalid to the extent it requires con­sid­er­a­tion of this information.

1988

Maynard v. Cartwright 486 U.S. 356: The Court held that Oklahoma’s aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stance refer­ring to espe­cial­ly heinous, atro­cious, or cru­el” mur­ders was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly vague under the 8th Amendment.

Mills v. Maryland 468 U.S. 367: The Court found Maryland’s death penal­ty sen­tenc­ing instruc­tions to be uncon­sti­tu­tion­al because a rea­son­able juror could inter­pret them as requir­ing unan­i­mous find­ings by jury on the absence or pres­ence of mitigating factors.

Johnson v. Mississippi 468 U.S. 578: The Court vacat­ed a death sen­tence because one of the aggra­vat­ing fac­tors was a pri­or New York con­vic­tion, which had been inval­i­dat­ed by the New York Court of Appeals.

Franklin v. Lynaugh 487 U.S. 164: The Court con­clud­ed that the tri­al Court’s refusal to give peti­tion­er’s request­ed spe­cial instruc­tions did not vio­late his Eighth Amendment right to present mitigating evidence.


Thompson v. Oklahoma 487 U.S. 815: The Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for­bid impo­si­tion of the death penal­ty on offend­ers who were under the age of 16 when their crimes were committed.

Lowenfield v. Phelps 484 U.S. 231: The Court held that a death sen­tence does not vio­late the Eight Amendment sim­ply because the sin­gle statu­to­ry aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stance found by the jury dupli­cates an ele­ment of the under­ly­ing offense of first-degree murder.

1989

Hildwin v. Florida 490 U.S. 638: The Court held that the 6th Amendment does not require a jury which ren­ders advi­so­ry sen­tenc­ing ver­dicts to spec­i­fy which aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances jus­ti­fy impo­si­tion of death penalty.

South Carolina v. Gathers 490 U.S. 805: The Court found that for the pur­pos­es of impos­ing the death penal­ty, the defendant’s pun­ish­ment must be tai­lored to his per­son­al respon­si­bil­i­ty and moral guilt. The Court held that the prosecutor’s state­ments about the vic­tim were not rel­e­vant to the cir­cum­stances of the crime. 

Penry v. Lynaugh 492 U.S. 302: The Court held that the the exe­cu­tion of per­sons with men­tal­ly retar­da­tion does not con­sti­tute cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ment under the Eighth Amendment, but that state the cap­i­tal sen­tencer must have a mech­a­nism to con­sid­er and give full effect to men­tal retar­da­tion as a mitigating factor.

Stanford v. Kentucky 492 U.S. 361: The Court held that the impo­si­tion of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment on an indi­vid­ual for a crime com­mit­ted at 16 or 17 years of age does not con­sti­tute cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ment under the Eighth Amendment.

1990

Walton v. Arizona 497 U.S. 639: The Court held that under the Sixth Amendment, a jury was not required to pass on the aggra­vat­ed fac­tors in order to impose a death sen­tence under Arizona law. A judge, in oth­er words, could weigh the aggra­vat­ing and mit­i­gat­ing fac­tors before sen­tenc­ing a defen­dant to death.

1991

Ford v. Georgia 498 U.S. 411: The Court held that Ford’s pre­tri­al motion to pre­vent the exclu­sion of black venire mem­bers on the basis of race was ade­quate to assert an equal protection claim.

Lankford v. Idaho 500 U.S. 110: The Court found that the sen­tenc­ing process vio­lat­ed the Due Process clause because the appel­lant was not giv­en ade­quate notice that the judge might sen­tence him to death.

Payne v. Tennessee 501 U.S. 808: The Court held that the 8th Amendment does not pro­hib­it the sen­tenc­ing jury from con­sid­er­ing vic­tim impact statements.

1992

Dawson v. Delaware 503 U.S. 159: The Court found that the intro­duc­tion of evi­dence that tied the defen­dant to the Aryan Brotherhood vio­lat­ed the defendant’s 1st and 14th Amendment rights because the evi­dence had no rel­e­vance to the issues being decid­ed in the proceedings. 

Espinosa v. Florida 505 U.S. 1079: The Court reversed Espinosa’s death sen­tence, find­ing that the jury’s con­sid­er­a­tion of the crime as espe­cial­ly wicked, evil, atro­cious or cru­el,” was an uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly vague statutory requirement. 

Richmond v. Lewis 506 U.S. 56: The Court reversed Richmond’s death sen­tence because they found Arizona’s statu­to­ry aggra­vat­ing fac­tors to be unconstitutionally vague.

1993

Arave v. Creech 507 U.S. 463: The Court found that Idaho’s aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stance ask­ing the jury to con­sid­er the utter dis­re­gard for human life” was not vague, and thus, constitutionally permissible.

Johnson v. Texas 509 U.S. 350: The Court reject­ed Johnson’s claim that Penry v. Lynaugh required sep­a­rate instruc­tion on the ques­tion regard­ing his youth in the sen­tenc­ing phase of his capital trial.

Herrera v. Collins 506 U.S. 390: Leonel Herrera pre­sent­ed evi­dence from a vari­ety of wit­ness­es, includ­ing an eye­wit­ness to the mur­der and a for­mer Texas state judge, indi­cat­ing some­one else had com­mit­ted the crime he was con­vict­ed of. However, the Court, while assum­ing that a claim of inno­cence raised a con­sti­tu­tion­al issue, held that Herrera’s evi­dence was insuf­fi­cient to mer­it a fed­er­al hear­ing, and not­ed he had recourse to the clemen­cy process in Texas.

1994

Romano v. Oklahoma 512 U.S. 1: The Court held that the admis­sion of a defendant’s death sen­tence in a pri­or tri­al dur­ing the sen­tenc­ing phase of his sec­ond cap­i­tal tri­al did not amount to a constitutional violation.

Tuilaepa v. California 512 U.S. 967: The Court upheld the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of California’s death sen­tence pro­ce­dures, with spe­cif­ic regard to the spe­cial cir­cum­stances” consideration.

1995

Harris v. Alabama 513 U.S. 504: The Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not require the State to define the weight the sen­tenc­ing judge must give to an advi­so­ry jury verdict.

1996

Loving v. United States 517 U.S. 748: The Court reject­ed Private Loving’s claim that the mil­i­tary Court mar­tial that sen­tenced him to death lacked the pow­er to del­e­gate to the President the author­i­ty to pre­scribe aggra­vat­ing fac­tors in cap­i­tal murder cases.