Ayers, Acting Warden v. Belmontes

Summary

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that California's factor (k) jury instruction did not prevent the jury from considering the defendant's forward-looking mitigation evidence about his capacity to lead a constructive life in prison. The Court found no reasonable likelihood that the jury interpreted the instruction to preclude constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence, consistent with prior precedents like Boyde v. California. Justice Stevens, dissenting, argued the instruction was unconstitutional at the time and that the record showed jury confusion regarding whether future conduct evidence could be considered.