Does a joint capital sentencing proceeding violate the Eighth Amendment right to individualized sentencing determination?

The high court held that joint capital sentencing proceedings do not violate the Eighth Amendment right to an individualized sentencing determination. ( Kansas v. Carr , supra , 577 U.S. at p. , [136 S.Ct. at p. 644].) Although the due process clause protects defendants against unduly prejudicial evidence that would render a trial fundamentally unfair, that standard was not met by the "mere admission of evidence that might not otherwise have been admitted in a severed proceeding." ( Id . at p. [136 S.Ct. at p. 645 ]; see id. at p. [136 S.Ct. at p. 644 ].) The high court observed that the trial court had instructed the jury that it must give " separate consideration to each defendant " and that evidence admitted as to one defendant should not be considered as to the other defendant. ( Id . at p. [136 S.Ct. at p. 645 ].) The high court presumed that the jury followed these instructions, while observing such limiting instructions " often will suffice to cure any risk of prejudice. " ( Ibid . ) Moreover, the high court concluded that the penalty verdicts were not a result of the challenged penalty evidence against one brother or the other, but of the guilt phase evidence of "acts of almost inconceivable cruelty and depravity." ( Id . at p. [136 S.Ct. at p. 646.].)

[8 Cal.5th 601]