In the case of California v. Brown, 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of California by a 7-2 vote, upholding the conviction and death sentence of Edmund Brown Jr., who had been found guilty for murder and rape. The defense argued that jury instructions which asked jurors to avoid any influence from "mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy or public opinion" were unconstitutional as they could potentially prevent consideration of mitigating factors during sentencing phase. However, majority justices disagreed with this argument stating that these instructions did not violate Eighth Amendment rights because it was intended to guide jurors away from irrelevant emotional responses rather than ignoring relevant character or personal history evidence about defendant's background which might argue against imposing death penalty. This ruling affirmed states' ability to limit juries' considerations in capital cases without violating constitutional protections.

In the dissenting opinion for California v. Brown, Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, argued that the jury instructions were constitutionally inadequate because they failed to clearly inform jurors of their responsibility to consider all mitigating evidence before deciding on a death sentence. The majority's interpretation of "consider" as merely acknowledging or noting was deemed too narrow; instead, it should mean giving effect or weight to such evidence in making a sentencing decision. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on Webster’s Dictionary definitions rather than legal precedent when interpreting terms related to capital punishment jurisprudence. He also expressed concern about potential arbitrariness in imposing death sentences due to unclear instructions and emphasized that any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of life imprisonment over execution.