October Term 2006 · Docket 05-493
Does California's catchall instruction bar jurors from weighing post-crime evidence?
the side that brought the case argues the instruction limits mitigation to pre-crime facts. the opposing side claims it allows full moral consideration.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the side that brought the case's counsel argued the instruction restricts mitigation to pre-crime facts.
the opposing side's counsel argued the case does not turn on factor (k) alone.
Justice Stevens questioned the distinction between pre-crime and post-crime evidence.
Justice Kennedy asked if the instruction mandates a single moral determination.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 3-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 41-4 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 41-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 5-22 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 5-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 37-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on California's penalty-phase instruction. the side that brought the case claims it restricts jurors to pre-crime facts. the opposing side argues it permits broad moral judgment.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 3-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 5-22 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 5-22
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 3, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 41-4 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 41-4
What each side wants
the side that brought the case seeks a ruling that the instruction unconstitutionally limits mitigation evidence.
the opposing side seeks a ruling that the instruction allows full consideration of all relevant facts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 3-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 5-22 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 5-22
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the instruction excludes post-crime mitigating evidence from jury consideration.
the opposing side argues the instruction supports a single moral determination of all circumstances.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 3-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 5-22 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 5-22
What the justices asked
Justice Stevens asked if the instruction distinguishes pre-crime and post-crime facts.
Justice Kennedy asked if the instruction requires a single moral determination.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 41-4 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 41-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 37-47
Why it matters
The outcome defines the scope of mitigating evidence in capital sentencing. It determines whether jurors weigh post-crime conduct. It shapes the constitutional limits of state penalty instructions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 3-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 5-22 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 5-22
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 41-4 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 41-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-33 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 3-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 3-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-21 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 37-47
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 3-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 5-22 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 5-22
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 3-31 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 3-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-35 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 5-22 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 5-22
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.