In Hitchcock v. Dugger, Florida Department of Corrections (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether a death sentence was valid when the sentencing judge and review court refused to consider non-statutory mitigating circumstances presented by the defendant, James Hitchcock. The case arose from a murder conviction in Florida where state law limited consideration of mitigating factors to those listed in its statute. During his trial, Hitchcock presented evidence related to his background and character that fell outside these statutory factors but were rejected by both courts as irrelevant for sentencing purposes. The Supreme Court held that this refusal violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment as interpreted in Lockett v Ohio (1978) which required all relevant mitigating information be considered before imposing capital punishment. Therefore, it concluded that since not all relevant mitigation had been taken into account during sentencing, Hitchcock’s death penalty could not stand under existing precedent.

In the dissenting opinion for Hitchcock v. Dugger, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's view that Hitchcock had not been denied his constitutional rights during sentencing. He argued that the trial court failed to consider all mitigating circumstances before deciding on a death sentence, which violated Lockett v. Ohio (1978). In this case, it was ruled unconstitutional to limit consideration of mitigating factors in capital cases. Brennan believed that because Hitchcock was prevented from presenting non-statutory mitigating evidence about his background and character at his sentencing hearing, he did not receive a fair trial as required by law. Furthermore, he criticized Florida's Supreme Court for its inconsistent application of rules regarding what constitutes valid mitigation evidence in capital cases.