In Booth v. Maryland (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a victim impact statement, which details the emotional and personal hardships suffered by the victim's family as a result of a crime, cannot be used during sentencing in capital cases because it could potentially prejudice the jury against the defendant and thus violate his or her Eighth Amendment rights to fair treatment. The case involved John Booth who was convicted for murder in 1983 and sentenced to death after such an impact statement was presented at his trial. The court held that these statements may distract jurors from their duty to decide impartially based on relevant factors about both crime and criminal, leading them instead towards decisions influenced by emotion rather than reason.

In the dissenting opinion for Booth v. Maryland, Justice White argued that victim impact statements should be allowed in capital sentencing proceedings. He contended that such information could provide a more complete picture of the crime's consequences and help juries make informed decisions about whether to impose death penalties. The majority's concern over emotional responses from jurors was dismissed by White as an inherent part of any trial process where human beings are involved. He also pointed out that other types of evidence, like gruesome crime scene photos or detailed descriptions of violent acts, can similarly evoke strong emotions but are still permitted in courtrooms because they offer relevant insights into crimes' severity and perpetrators' culpability. Therefore, he believed it was inconsistent to exclude victim impact statements on these grounds while allowing other potentially emotive evidence.