Victim-impact-evidence-exclusion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under the auspices of Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991), victim Marcus Smith’s life mattered more to the State of Oklahoma in capital sentencing proceedings if he was seen as a hard-working, virtuous Church member, not a cruel and violent gang member. So the State painted a deceptive picture of Mr. Smith and prevented the defense from cross-examining the State’s three victim-impact witnesses or presenting evidence to correct and counter the State’s one-sided, inaccurate portrayal. On federal habeas, the district court denied all relief and found the excluded defense evidence was “irrelevant” and did “not fit either category” of mitigating evidence from Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604 (1978), i.e., (1) evidence of the defendant’s character or record, or (2) evidence of the circumstances of the offense.