ABSTRACT
The decision making of judges in capital trials has never been analyzed, but considering their role as judicial elites, judges have an extraordinary power to frame cultural narratives. The judge rejects the mitigating impact of contextualizing evidence and actually re-affirms the dominant cultural narrative despite acknowledging Steve's background and its powerful influence. Steve's trial represents one of the most troubling uses of mitigating life history evidence. Unlike the sentencing opinions in the life cases that either did not mention the life history evidence or barely grazed the surface, the judge in Steve's trial spent nearly five pages detailing Steve's background and the influence the co-perpetrator had over his behavior. As in Steve's case, the judge discussed the presented life history evidence in the sentencing opinion of Charlie's trial, but the overall theme presented in the sentencing opinion was one of individual responsibility.
