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