Cesar Pacheco-Mota v. Merrick B. Garland

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, with regard to the selection phase of a capital sentencing process, “our decisions suggest that complete jury discretion is constitutionally permissible”
• recognizing that, in the selection phase of a capital sentencing proceeding, there is a need for a broad inquiry into all relevant mitigating evidence to allow an individualized determination
• holding that defendant was not entitled 8 under the Eighth Amendment to an instruction on specific mitigating factors
• recognizing that, in the selection phase of a capital sentencing proceeding, there is a need for a broad inquiry into all relevant mitigating evidence to allow an individualized determination
• holding jury instructions in a Virginia capital sentencing proceeding adequately permitted consideration of mitigating evidence of the defendant’s difficult family background and mental and emotional problems
• stating that it was \not likely\ the jury would disregard two days of testimony relating to petitioner's family background and mental and emotional problems in making its decision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).