Should this Court overrule Clemons v. Mississippi

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (Capital Case) Nevada courts instruct juries that they may consider imposing a death sentence only after finding at least one statutory aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt and further finding that there are no mitigating circumstances sufficient to outweigh the aggravating factor or factors. If the Nevada Supreme Court later invalidates aggravating factors, it will then replicate the jury’s second step, “reweighing” the remaining aggravating factors against any mitigating evidence. That is precisely what the Nevada Supreme Court did here, resulting in two decisions re-imposing the death penalty. The Nevada Supreme Court reasoned that this procedure is allowed by Clemons v. Mississippr—a decision predating this Court’s Apprendi line of cases. The Nevada Supreme Court also held that the outweighing step was not an eligibility requirement, but rather a mechanism for the jury to retract a finding of death-eligibility. The questions presented are: 1. Should this Court overrule Clemons v. Mississippi as inconsistent with Apprendi and its progeny, to the extent that it allows an appellate court to independently reweigh aggravating factors against mitigation to uphold a death sentence? 2. Did the Nevada Supreme Court violate the petitioners’ rights by making the outweighing requirement an afterthought for the jury, used only to lessen a death sentence to life imprisonment? i