United States v. Jorge Torrez  ·  2017-08-28  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 100 L. Ed. 2d at 398

“[T]he penalty of death may not be imposed under sentencing procedures that create a substantial risk of that the punishment will be inflicted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.”

United States v. Montgomery  ·  2011-04-05  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 100 L. Ed. 2d at 398

“A person of ordinary sensibility could fairly characterize almost every murder as ‘outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman.’ ”

Gregory Esparza, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Betty Mitchell, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee  ·  2002-11-05  ·  Sixth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 100 L. Ed. 2d at 398

"The standardless and unchanneled imposition of death sentences in the uncontrolled discretion of a basically uninstructed jury in this case was in no way cured by the affirmance of those sentences by the Georgia Supreme Court."

State v. Moeller  ·  2000-08-30  ·  South Dakota Supreme Court  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 100 L. Ed. 2d at 398

"outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman"

United States Ex Rel. Free v. Peters  ·  1992-09-24  ·  N.D. Illinois  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 100 L. Ed. 2d at 398

“[I]f a State wishes to authorize capital punishment it has a constitutional responsibility to tailor and apply its law in a manner that avoids the arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death penalty.”

Sochor v. Florida  ·  1992-06-08  ·  Supreme Court  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 446 U.S. at 420

"This Court has indicated that for error to be so fundamental that it may be urged on appeal, though not properly presented below, the error must amount to a denial of due process"

State ex rel. Dally v. Elliston  ·  1991-06-11  ·  Supreme Court of Missouri  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 100 L. Ed. 2d at 398

“outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman,” standing alone, permits “arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death sentence”

Warren McCleskey Cross-Appellant v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Cross-Appellee  ·  1985-01-29  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 100 L. Ed. 2d at 398

"[I]f a State wishes to authorize capital punishment it has a constitutional responsibility to tailor and apply its law in a manner that avoids the arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death penalty."

Witt v. State  ·  1980-07-24  ·  Supreme Court of Florida  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 100 L. Ed. 2d at 398

"[T]he majority today endorses the argument that I thought we had rejected in Gregg: namely, `that no matter how effective the death penalty may be as a punishment, government, created and run as it must be by humans, is inevitably incompetent to administer it.'"