United States v. Con-ui
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
A. Richard Caputo, United States District Judge
Presently before me is the government’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Comparative Proportionality Evidence (Doc. 918). For the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.
I. Analysis
The government asks me to preclude Defendant from introducing at the penalty phase “comparative proportionality evidence,” that is, information on other capital prosecutions, defendants, and victims, and, in particular, similarly-situated capital cases in which a sentence of death was not pursued or imposed. Comparative proportionality evidence is aimed…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Gregg v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Lockett v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Eddings v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Penry v. LynaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Pulley v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.