WPCc\ 2 B5JCourierNew Century SchoolbookNew Century Schoolbook Italic#|yolbookAPLASIIN.PRSx  @hhhhPijX@#|y2?5< ZqtNew Century SchoolbookNew Century Schoolbook ItalicApple LaserWriter IINTAPLASIIN.PRS0y P['ChhhhPijXPBibliogrphyBibliography:X (# 2 q{yOutlineTo set up outline text^ I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)ҲMemoemStyle for memo among Justices 2/9/91^ #x6X@8;ZX@# 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardJet 500 /.H) @-  -@  =  Block QuoteSingle spaced indented quote XOutlineBOutline with Bullets* I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)-*+x-*+x-*+xҲ2$< sv ; PoolPool memo formatQ_,   =      ?0 Preliminary MemorandumăD(#OutlineNOutline with Numbersܸ-} I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1.(1) 1.(1) 1. 1) 1. 1. 1.(1) 1.(1) 1. 1) 1. 1. 1.(1) 1.(1) 1. 1) 1.Ҳenvelope9 x 4 legal. `   3'3'Standard,,Envelope`   , LetterheadReporter's Office v |L #d*0 xM7[#Supreme Court of the United States Reporter of Decisions Office  |L EWashington, D. C. 20543#X~xP79XP#2MVdfXmastreeFamily newsletteramily newsletter 7 N s  XX  XX y!>X XxddXMASTREE.WPGyyA>B" XxddXMASTREE.WPGy# #xCz  xCx#Merry Christmas#z  xC# (from #Toni and Aarony(#Xdddy *y 4dddy %X XX  _` #o P['C#{&P#FooterFirst to be turned on - goes with To/From Masthead )hl Xh  XX   y(#XXdddy    dd #u9 xICH0##Merry ChristmasTo/From3Second to be turned on - goes with Footer style 'v a  1  1 y!hhp(! ddADVENT.WPG<y#p4  p(AC!3#From`"(#ITo  n  y(dddy##9 xIC#Toni`(#(#Ky(dddy#t4  p(ACsX#у  W T$҇ 1 ! 1 Skierd3Christmas Newslettergoh Family Name +^0 U  X   X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:P# d  dd^_ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES #[ P['CdP# ^_  2  )Syllabus #GG P['CԦ^P#    #[ P['CdP#SYLCT-C 6Formats: Case No. and Datelines MacropcJR-#[ P['CdP# dd  "m^8;Noo)CCdy8C88oooooooooo88yyyYQo~čzCyCyd)ooYsdCkz?;w?zdsoY]Nzkkk`CyCyC8CC!CCCCCCCCCCs?oooooȟYddddQ?Q?Q?Q?zddddzzzzkosddkdsoooYYYYsddddkkkkkkzzQ?Q?Q?Q?ow?????zzzzddȧYYY~]~]~]~]NNNzzzzzzĜkz`z`z`s?zY~]NkksdzNy8yd;YUUoooCgwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR2CX5c8cU<c?&-yC8 h0y P['CXP&u![2*d[ P['CP&[G' ԦGG P['C^P[G' GGe xzC^XCN%_GT4J6N-R?R?[C[:_GNG G:#422AAA'#aaA'VVAa'--Au::uGGu-u'GG@@S G&&@@@SZSSGssFFz/G `S:0P]sssFFzZSSSS3`ZZZFFM:@e@@SSSTJN@F0G:G3G:TFV='&T@P@hGT=K:T@Z@A@EF3G3QCY=T@]PZPJ3F&&@CCPJHFSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ3333333FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF&&&&&&&&&&&&@@@@@@@CCCCCCCCCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPTGT'TQZ'Q@"m^ #-AAa_'':G ' AAAAAAAAAA GGG4VTTT[TN[a/A[Nn_[N[TJN_TrRRG'G'G:AA4C:'?G%#E%hG:CA46-G?[??8'G'G' ''u''''''''''C%TATATATATAu]T4T:T:T:T:/%/%/%/%_G[:[:[:[:_G_G_G_GR?TA[C[:[:R?[:NCTATATAT4T4T4T4[CT:T:T:T:[?[?[?[?[?[?aGaG/%/%/%/%A[EN%N%N%N%N%_G_G_G_G[:[:uaT4T4T4J6J6J6J6N-N-N-_G_G_G_G_G_Gr[R?G8G8G8[CN%_GT4J6N-R?R?[C[:_GNG G:#422AAA'#aaA'VVAa'--Au::uGGu-u'GG@@S G&&@@@SZSSGssFFz/G `S:0P]sssFFzZSSSS3`ZZZFFM:@e@@SSSTJN@F0G:G3G:TFV='&T@P@hGT=K:T@Z@A@EF3G3QCY=T@]PZPJ3F&&@CCPJHFSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ3333333FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF&&&&&&&&&&&&@@@@@@@CCCCCCCCCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPTGT'TQZ'Q@"m^ '/AAac'':G ' GAAAAAAAAAA GGG4WRTT[TN[a/GVNn_[N[VNP_RlRPN'G'G:CA4G4'?G'%A'hG:CA44)G=[::6'G'G' ''u''''''''''A'RCRCRCRCRCfTT4T4T4T4T4/'/'/'/'_G[:[:[:[:_G_G_G_GP:RC[G[:[:P:[:NCRCRCRCT4T4T4T4[GT4T4T4T4[?[?[?[?[?[?aGaG/'/'/'/'GVAN'N'N'N'N'_G_G_G_G[:[:r[V4V4V4N4N4N4N4P)P)P)_G_G_G_G_G_Gl[P:N6N6N6[GN'_GV4N4P)P:P:[G[:_GNG L:'422AAA1+aaA'WWAa' --:u''::oGGu-u'GG@@S G&&@@@SZSSGssFFz/G `S:0P]sssFFzZSSSS3`ZZZFFM:@e@@SSSTJN@F0G:G3G:TFV='&T@P@hGT=K:T@Z@A@EF3G3QCY=T@]PZPJ3F&&@CCPJHFSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ3333333FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF&&&&&&&&&&&&@@@@@@@CCCCCCCCCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPTGT'TQZ'Q@"m^AE[¾0NNuANAAAAh_ܾ夤NNu0huN}JEJϏuhl[}}}pNNNANN'NNNNNNNNNNJ麨huuuu_J_J_J_Juuuu}uu}uhhhhuuuu}}}}}}_J_J_J_JJJJJJuu¨hhhllll[[[嶤}pppJhl[}}uNAuEhccNFÂNN0[[<<uu0[NэA'MM捍]@s:`捍fsѨ`sfszNMϏzsffzfMMfffffffMMMMMMMMMMMMNN2PZMCcFcJcvM&-yC8 h0y P['CXP&u![2*d[ P['CP&[G' ԦGG P['C^P([G' GGe xzC^X&)4NA> P['CP1u![2*[e xzCX&)o=3no P['C&PфtzeoKp[pPp[o`=gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%ffQi\=bp:6m:p\ifQUGpbbbX=o=o=3============i:fffffQ\\\\K:K:K:K:p\\\\ppppbfi\\b\zifffQQQQi\\\\bbbbbbppK:K:K:K:fmz:z:z:z:z:pppp\\QQQtUtUtUtUzGzGzGppppppbpXpXpXiz:pQtUzGbbi\pNo3o\6QNNfff=7f=f=%GGf//\\pp%G=ooee3o< P['CP1u![2*[e xzCX&9)o=3no P['C&P :)o=3Roe xzC&X&r!Y1)LY P['CP)o=3no P['C&P (WS\(SB"m^)+9RRzx11IY)1))RRRRRRRRRR))YYYAljjjrjbrz>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91YYQQi)Y00QQQiqiiYXX;Y(yiH$<euXXqiiii@yqqqXXaHQQQiiij]bQXP# ?d  dd^_ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES #[ P['CdP# ^_  2  &Syllabus  J #GG P['CԦ^P#    #[ P['CdP#i%"K uB  ddd #ARAVE v. CREECH &Syllabusi0SYLCT-A#o P['Cn&P#Y f ARAVE, WARDEN v. CREECH *i/SYLCT-B- #o P['Cn&P#   fdf < certiorari to the united states court of appeals for "the ninth circuit  uB *cSYLCT-C #[ P['CdP# df  No. 91!1160. Argued November 10, 1992"Decided March 30, 1993 *bSYLCT-D#[ P['CdP#d  uB *,  d , , After respondent Creech pleaded guilty to firstdegree murder for the brutal slaying of a fellow Idaho prison inmate, the state trial judge sentenced him to death based, in part, on the statutory aggravating circumstance that ``[b]y the murder, or circumstances surrounding its commission, the defendant exhibited utter disregard for human life.'' In affirming, the Idaho Supreme Court, among other things, rejected Creech's argument that this aggravating circumstance is unconstitutionally vague and reaffirmed the limiting construction it  uBI had placed on the statutory language in State v. Osborn, 102 Idaho  uB 405, 418!419, 631 P.2d 187, 200!201, whereby, inter alia, ``  `the phrase ``utter disregard'' ... is meant to be reflective of ... the coldblooded, pitiless slayer.' 0 '' Although the Federal District Court denied habeas corpus relief, the Court of Appeals found the ``utter disregard'' circumstance facially invalid, holding, among other things, that the  uB circumstance is unconstitutionally vague and that the Osborn narrowing construction is inadequate to cure the defect under this Court's precedents. Ƭ  uB \SYLCT-E , , ( (  *  ( ( Held: ư  uB 7SYLCT-F ( ( ,  T T 1.In light of the consistent narrowing definition given the ``utter disregard'' circumstance by the Idaho Supreme Court, the circumstance, on its face, meets constitutional standards. Pp.6!14. T T  (a)To satisfy the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, a capital sentencing scheme must channel the sentencer's discretion by ``  `clear and objective standards' H '' that provide specific and detailed guidance and make rationally reviewable the death sentencing process. See,  uB e.g., Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 774. In order to decide whether a particular aggravating circumstance meets these requirements, a federal court must determine whether the statutory language "1!"(( defining the circumstance is itself too vague to guide the sentencer; if so, whether the state courts have further defined the vague terms; and, if so, whether those definitions are constitutionally sufficient,  uB% i.e., whether they provide some guidance. Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 654. However, it is not necessary to decide here whether the statutory phrase ``utter disregard for human life'' itself passes constitutional muster. The Idaho Supreme Court has adopted a limiting construction, and that construction meets constitutional requirements. Pp.6!7.  uBo  T T  (b)The Osborn construction is sufficiently ``clear and objective.''  uB& In ordinary usage, the phrase ``coldblooded, pitiless slayer'' refers to a killer who kills without feeling or sympathy. Thus, the phrase  uB describes the defendant's state of mind:not his mens rea, but his attitude toward his conduct and his victim. The law has long recognized that such state of mind is not a ``subjective'' matter, but a  uB fact to be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Although determining whether a capital defendant killed without feeling or sympathy may be difficult, that does not mean that a State cannot, consistent with the Constitution, authorize sentencing judges to make the inquiry and to take their findings into account when  uBL deciding whether capital punishment is warranted. Cf. Walton,  uB supra, at 655. Pp.7!10.  uB T T  (c)Although the question is close, the Osborn construction satisfies the requirement that a State's capital sentencing scheme ``genuinely narrow the class of defendants eligible for the death  uB penalty.'' Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 877. The class of persons so eligible under Idaho law is defined broadly to include all firstdegree murderers, a category which is itself broad because it includes a sizable number of seconddegree murderers under specified circumstances. Even within these broad definitions, the word ``pitiless,'' standing alone, might not narrow the class of death eligible defendants, since a sentencing judge might conclude that every firstdegree murderer is ``pitiless.'' Given the statutory scheme, however, a sentencing judge reasonably could find that not all Idaho capital defendants are ``coldblooded,'' since some within the broad class of  uB firstdegree murderers do exhibit feeling, for example, anger, jealousy, or revenge. Pp.10!12. T T  (d)This Court rejects the suggestion of the parties and the dissent that the facial constitutionality of the ``utter disregard''  uB circumstance, as construed in Osborn, should be determined by examining for consistency the applications of the circumstance by the state courts in other cases. Although the Court's facial challenge precedents authorize a federal court to consider state court  uB formulations of a limiting construction to ensure that they are"D    uB consistent, see, e.g., Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242, 255, n. 12, those precedents have not authorized review of state court cases to  uBn determine whether a limiting construction has been applied consistently. A comparative analysis of state court cases, moreover, would be particularly inappropriate here. None of the cases on which Creech or the dissent relies influenced either his trial judge or the Idaho Supreme Court, which upheld his death sentence before it had  uB applied Osborn to any other set of facts, and thereafter has  uB repeatedly reaffirmed its Osborn interpretation. Pp.12!14. T T 2.The Court decides only the foregoing question. The Court of  uB& Appeals had no occasion to reach the Jeffers issue"whether the state courts' application of the ``utter disregard'' circumstance to the facts of this case violated the Constitution. See 497 U.S., at 783. Because Creech is already entitled to resentencing in state court on the basis of another of the Court of Appeals' rulings, the posture of the case makes it unnecessary for this Court to reach his remaining arguments. Pp.14!15. m*SYLCT-G , , ,  ' *  , , 947 F.2d 873, reversed in part and remanded.Ƭ  uB cSYLCT-H , , ( (    O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which  uBU Rehnquist, C.J., and White, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas,  uB  JJ., joined. Blackmun, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which  uB Stevens, J., joined.