Should federal courts provide uniform guidance in analyzing harm from unconstitutionally obtained confessions in death penalty cases?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Jurors’ death sentences are particularly sensitive to the impact from confessions admitted in violation of the Constitution. In Oklahoma, once the defendant is convicted of first-degree murder he is death-eligible. At sentencing the jury determines whether statutory aggravating circumstances exist, whether the aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, and then whether death is appropriate, even if aggravating factors outweigh mitigating considerations. Assessment of harm in this context is complicated because Oklahoma juries are not required to identify mitigating factors they consider and because the appropriateness of the death penalty ultimately rests within an individual juror’s complete discretion. Federal courts, in assessing harm on a single juror’s death verdict, struggle with the connection between guilt-phase and sentencing-phase errors, what consideration to give the character of the death penalty proceedings, what factors impact this crucial individual sentencing decision, and what limits exist in evaluating the error in the context of the whole record. These considerations present two questions: Should this Court provide uniform guidance to federal courts in their analyses under Brecht v. Abrahamson when the harm caused in the admission of an unconstitutionally obtained confession need only substantially and injuriously impact a single juror’s critical death penalty verdict? Can a habeas court properly consider the record as a “whole” as required by Brecht v. Abrahamson if it fails to assess the mitigating evidence that was presented, did not consider evidence that should have been presented had defendant received effective assistance of counsel, and did not consider evidence the prosecutor failed to disclosed in violation of Brady v. Maryland? i