In the 1984 case of Caldwell v. Mississippi, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for a prosecutor to suggest during sentencing in a capital murder trial that the jury's decision about whether or not to impose death would be reviewed by an appellate court, thereby lessening their sense of responsibility. The defendant, Bobby Caldwell had been convicted and sentenced to death for killing a police officer in Mississippi. During his appeal process, he argued that comments made by prosecutors during his trial improperly influenced jurors' decisions regarding his sentence because they suggested any errors could be corrected on appeal. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument and held that such remarks violated Caldwell's Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment as they undermined the need for reliability in determining who should receive a death sentence.

In the dissenting opinion for Caldwell v. Mississippi, Justice Thurgood Marshall, joined by Justices Brennan and Stevens, argued that the majority's decision to uphold Caldwell's death sentence was flawed because it failed to address serious issues of racial bias in jury selection. They contended that there were clear patterns of systematic exclusion of black jurors from capital cases in Mississippi at the time. The dissenters also disagreed with the majority’s view on prosecutorial misconduct during sentencing phase closing arguments; they believed such behavior could unduly influence a jury’s decision-making process regarding life or death sentences. Furthermore, they criticized how this case was handled procedurally: specifically, they felt it should have been remanded back to state court for further fact-finding rather than being decided upon an incomplete record at Supreme Court level. Overall, their main concern was ensuring fairness and impartiality within criminal justice system processes - particularly those leading up to imposition of ultimate penalty i.e., death sentence.