Summary

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II McGautha v. California (402 U.S. 183…

The Constitution requires no more than that trials be fairly conducted and that guaranteed rights of defendants be scrupulously respected. From a constitutional standpoint we cannot conclude that it is impermissible for a State to consider that the compassionate purposes of jury sentencing in capital cases are better served by having the issues of guilt and punishment determined in a single trial than by focusing the jury's attention solely on punishment after the issue of guilt has been determined.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan II John Marshall Harlan II McGautha v. California (402 U.S. 183…

We are thus constrained to reject the suggestion that a desire to speak to one's sentencer unlawfully compels a defendant in a single-verdict capital case to incriminate himself, unless there is something which serves to distinguish sentencing-or at least capital sentencing-from the situations given above. Such a distinguishing factor can only be the peculiar poignancy of the position of a man whose life is at stake, coupled with the imponderables of the decision which the jury is called upon to make.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature