of punishment. The trial court violated the Eighth Amendment by relying on these characteristics as aggravating circumstances. This Eighth Amendment violation is not harmless error because the evidence of Pizzuto’s low I.Q. not only should not have been considered aggravating, but it should have been considered mitigating. According to the expert testimony of Dr. Emery, Pizzuto’s I.Q. of 72 indicates that he is borderline mentally retarded. Courts have frequently held that borderline mental retardation is an important mitigating factor. See, e.g., Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000). Pizzuto was entitled to the opportunity to have this factor be considered mitigating. See Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 319, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) (<HOLDING>). This opportunity was foreclosed when the
holding that the trier of fact must be allowed to consider and give effect to all relevant mitigating evidence holding that the key under pewy i  is that the jury be able to consider and give effect to a defendants mitigating evidence in imposing sentence holding that a sentencer may not refuse to consider as a matter of law any relevant mitigating evidence holding that the sentencing structure allowed the jury to give mitigating effect to petitioners prison record holding that statutes must be read so as to give effect to all statutory language