In Hildwin v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated when a judge, rather than a jury, determined the presence of aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. The case involved Charles Hildwin who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by electrocution in Florida state court. His appeal argued that his constitutional right to trial by jury was infringed upon because it was the judge who found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt on several key issues related to sentencing instead of leaving those determinations up to jurors. However, the Supreme Court upheld his sentence with an 8-1 decision stating that there is no constitutional requirement for a jury determination of facts which can lead to imposition of capital punishment.

In the dissenting opinion for Hildwin v. Florida, Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens, argued that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to determine any fact necessary for imposing capital punishment. They disagreed with the majority's view that it was constitutionally acceptable for a judge alone to make this determination based on their findings of fact. The dissenters believed this violated an individual’s right to trial by jury as guaranteed under the Constitution. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential inconsistencies in sentencing due to different judges interpreting evidence differently or having varying personal biases regarding capital punishment. This could lead to arbitrary imposition of death sentences which would be unconstitutional under Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishments.