L.Ed.2d 876 (1989) (quoting Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 801, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 3378, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982) (alteration in original)). The Eighth Amendment provides a capital defendant the broadest latitude to offer evidence at sentencing to avoid the death penalty. The general rule is that the jury must consider any mitigating evidence, that is, “any aspect of a defendant’s character or record or any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 2965, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion). The only question here, as the majority acknowledges, is whether any reasonable juror could have found the redacted portion of the confession to be mitigating. See ante at 419-20 (<HOLDING>). Howard’s effort to offer his full confession
holding introduction of actually coerced confession constitutes reversible error even where confession was cumulative in nature holding that summary judgment was appropriate when no reasonable factfinder could have found for the nonmovant holding that corpus delicti rule is satisfied if some evidence exists outside of extrajudicial confession which considered alone or in connection with confession shows that crime actually occurred holding that a petitioner is entitled to habeas corpus relief if it is found that upon the record evidence adduced at the trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt holding that we are firmly convinced that no reasonable juror could have found that the unredacted portions of howards confession were evidence that weldon rather than howard actually killed le