A new paper, titled What Constitutes “Consideration” of Mitigating Evidence? by Emad H. Atiq and Erin L. Miller of Princeton University, examines how lower courts have applied the principle from Lockett v. Ohio that requires capital sentencers to “consider” any mitigating evidence presented by the defense. The paper compares “narrow-scope consideration,” which values mitigation based on causal nexus to the crime, to “broad-scope consideration,” which focuses on the nature and effects of the mitigation more generally, with little or no causal analysis. The authors argue that the principle underlying Lockett and its progeny “is broader than courts have so far recognized.”
The Training Division provides resource materials to federal capital trial and federal capital habeas counsel through the Capital Defense Network.