In the case of California v. Ramos, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of California by a 5-4 vote in 1982. The issue at hand was whether or not it was constitutional for a jury to be informed that if they did not impose the death penalty, and instead chose life imprisonment without parole, then there would still be an opportunity for the governor to commute this sentence later on. This information had been given during Manuel Ramos's trial who had been convicted of murder and kidnapping charges. The defense argued that this instruction biased juries towards choosing capital punishment over life sentences due to fear of potential release through commutation by future governors. However, the majority opinion held that informing jurors about possible commutation did not violate any constitutional rights as it provided them with accurate legal context regarding their sentencing options.

In the dissenting opinion for California v. Ramos, Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens, argued that the instruction given to jurors about a governor's power to commute a life sentence without parole was unconstitutional. They believed it introduced arbitrary factors into sentencing decisions and could potentially lead to bias in favor of death sentences over life imprisonment without parole. The justices also expressed concern that this instruction might mislead jurors into thinking they were not fully responsible for their decision on sentencing because it could be modified later by the governor. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view that states have broad latitude under the Eighth Amendment in deciding how capital cases should be conducted; instead arguing such practices must meet federal constitutional standards.