ABSTRACT
Bifurcation of issues in criminal trials, especially in capital cases, has become an effective procedural device that states use to avoid violating the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. Bifurcation divides a criminal trial into two parts: one in which the court or jury determines guilt, the other in which the court or jury sentences a convicted defendant. The rationale for use of bifurcated trials in civil trials is essentially the same as in criminal cases. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent is noteworthy in view of the Court's position requiring bifurcation in capital cases. The Texas court joined several other states requiring bifurcated trials in tort cases in which plaintiffs seek punitive damages. The wealth of a defendant cannot justify an otherwise unconstitutional punitive damages award" may herald the end of a need for bifurcated hearings in punitive damages cases.
