jury never heard. The jury was not told that when Howard released the bag, Weldon grabbed it, held it over Ms. Le’s head, and reapplied pressure. Because of this omission, the sentencing jury was not allowed to hear Howard’s assertion that Weldon likely committed the act that killed Ms. Le. Howard argues that the jury was required to consider whether this mitigated his own moral responsibility for the murder. Howard is correct that moral culpability is always relevant to sentencing: “Our capital eases have consistently recognized that’[f]or purposes of imposing the death penalty ... [the defendant’s] punishment must be tailored to his personal responsibility and moral guilt.’ ” South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805, 810, 109 S.Ct. 2207, 2210, 21, 95 L.Ed.2d 347 (1987) (Scalia, J.) (<HOLDING>). Howard must be allowed to present his side of
holding that resentencing hearing in capital case is not barred by double jeopardy when appeals court rejects sole aggravating factor found by sentencer failure of sentencer to find other alleged aggravating factors is not an acquittal of these factors for double jeopardy purposes holding that defendants relatively minor participation in the crime is a mitigating factor that sentencer must consider holding that trial court must consider both statutory and nonstatutory mitigating factors holding for a unanimous court that sentencer in capital case must consider an extensive list of nonstatutory mitigating factors holding that a sentencer may not refuse to consider as a matter of law any relevant mitigating evidence