of the particular offense are considered.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269, 118 S.Ct. 757, 761, 139 L.Ed.2d 702 (1998) (“In the selection phase, we have emphasized the need to allow a broad inquiry into all relevant mitigating evidence to allow an individual determination.”). As the Court has made clear, this requirement is not satisfied merely by procedures which categorize a defendant’s crime as worthy of execution; rather, what is required is a completely individualized process in which sentencers determine whether imposing death on a particular defendant is a rational and morally appropriate response to the accused’s crime and character. See Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 801, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 3378-79, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982) (<HOLDING>); California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538, 545, 107
holding that capital punishment must be tailored to the defendants personal responsibility and moral guilt holding that a showing of actual prejudice was required where the defendant claimed that counsel was ineffective for conceding guilt at the guilt phase of a capital trial holding that a codefendants sentence is not relevant to an appellants guilt innocence or punishment holding punishment must be proportional to the crime convicted holding evidence admissible in punishment phase of trial because evidence had bearing on appellants personal responsibility and moral guilt