l. Mitigation: Watson: Historical Perspective.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

i. Statutory and Case Authority Before Watson.

(1) Initially, Arizona’s statute (A.R.S. § 13-454) listed certain mitigating circumstances without any catchall provision. Lopez, 175 Ariz. at 415.

(a) And so initially the Court believed that it could only consider mitigating circumstances that had been specified by the legislature. Id. at 414.

(i) In Richmond, the Court held that the statute allowed the sentencer to take account of the statutory mitigating circumstances only. 114 Ariz. at 195; accord Bishop, 118 Ariz. at 269.

(ii) So, for example, a lack of prior convictions could not be considered as mitigation. Bishop, 118 Ariz. at 269.

ii. Constitutionality of Scheme Before Watson.

(1) Generally.

(a) The Court ruled that it was constitutional. Lee, 114 Ariz. at 105; Richmond, 114 Ariz. at 195-96.

(2) Whether it Was Sufficiently Reliable.

(a) The scheme insured that the sentencer was given adequate information and guidance. Richmond, 114 Ariz. at 195; accord Bishop, 118 Ariz. at 269.

(b) Because the judge’s discretion was confined within narrow limits, there was very little liklihood that the death penalty would be imposed freakishly or arbitrarily. Jordan,114 Ariz. at 457; accord Bishop, 118 Ariz. at 269.

iii. Lockett and Eddings.

(1)

...