Question 1

Jury unanimity is required in regard to mitigating factors, and they must have supporting evidence.

Accepted Answer

Jury unanimity is not required for mitigating factors in a death penalty case; any juror can consider mitigating factors on their own, and these do not need to be agreed upon by all jurors.

Question 2

In Barefoot v. Estelle, the Court upheld psychiatric testimony about the future dangerousness of the defendant as an aggravating factor justifying the sentence of death.

Accepted Answer

In Barefoot v. Estelle (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that psychiatric testimony predicting a defendant's future dangerousness is admissible in the penalty phase of a capital trial, thus upholding the use of such testimony as an aggravating factor in sentencing decisions.

Question 3

Some scholars have pointed out that future dangerousness is "always at issue" in capital cases.

Accepted Answer

In capital cases, the assessment of future dangerousness is a critical factor that courts often consider when deciding whether to impose the death penalty. This assessment is aimed at determining whether the defendant poses a continuing threat to society.

Question 4

The landmark case Payne v. Tennessee concluded that the admission of victim impact statements in the sentencing phase of a capital trial does not constitute a violation of the 8^th Amendment.

Accepted Answer

The Supreme Court in Payne v. Tennessee (1991) held that the admission of victim impact statements in the sentencing phase of a capital trial does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

Question 5

One reason for not imposing the death penalty may be a jury finding that mitigating factors are present.

Accepted Answer

Mitigating factors are circumstances that might decrease the severity of the punishment or lead to a lesser sentence, including in cases where the death penalty is considered.

Question 6

Aggravating-only statues require the jury to first consider whether any aggravating factors exist.

Accepted Answer

Aggravating-only statutes indeed require the jury to first consider whether any aggravating factors exist before they can decide on imposing the harshest penalties, such as the death penalty. This process ensures that the decision to apply such penalties is based on specific, serious aspects of the crime.

Question 7

Mitigating factors can be statutory or nonstatutory.

Accepted Answer

Mitigating factors in the context of law can be both statutory, meaning they are defined by law, and nonstatutory, meaning they are not specifically defined by law but can be considered by a judge or jury in determining the severity of a sentence.

Question 8

If in the minds of the jurors, mitigating factors do not outweigh aggravating factors, then the appropriate sentence is life imprisonment and not death.

Accepted Answer

The statement is not universally true as the decision between life imprisonment and the death penalty depends on the jurisdiction's laws and the specific circumstances of the case. In some jurisdictions, if mitigating factors do not outweigh aggravating factors, the jury can still consider the death penalty as an appropriate sentence.

Question 9

Texas's death penalty statute is an example of the aggravating-versus-mitigating scheme.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Texas's death penalty statute is an example...

Question 10

Many capital cases heard by the Supreme Court have revolved around procedural and statutory issues involving aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Accepted Answer

Capital cases often involve complex legal issues, including those related to the procedures by which death penalty sentences are determined and the statutory definitions of what constitutes aggravating and mitigating circumstances. These factors are crucial in deciding whether a defendant is eligible for the death penalty.

Quiz 9: Aggravating and Mitigating Factors in Death Penalty Cases