California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Lam Thanh Nguyen, 191 Cal.Rptr.3d 182, 354 P.3d 90, 61 Cal.4th 1015 (Cal. 2015):
the jury shall determine whether the penalty shall be death or confinement in state prison for a term of life without the possibility of parole.... [] ... [] ... If the trier of fact determines that the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances the trier of fact shall impose a sentence of confinement in state prison for a term of life without the possibility of parole. ( 190.3.) If a juror believes that life without possibility of parole in fact allows paroleand for that reason regards that sentence as an inadequate alternative to the death penalty in a particular casethat juror would have labored under a false choice between sentencing [the defendant] to death and sentencing him to a limited period of incarceration. (Simmons v. South Carolina (1994) 512 U.S. 154, 161, 114 S.Ct. 2187, 129 L.Ed.2d 133.) In other words, a mistaken belief that the alternative to death is more lenient than the law actually provides may improperly bias that juror's penalty determination in favor of death.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.