In the 1990 case of Bryan Stuart Lankford v. Idaho, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lankford, who had been sentenced to death for first-degree murder by an Idaho court. The issue at hand was whether or not Lankford had received adequate notice that he could potentially face a capital sentence if found guilty. The trial judge did not inform him until after his conviction that he would be considering a possible death penalty sentence, which violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as it denied him fair opportunity to prepare and present arguments against such a severe punishment. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that when sentencing is separate from conviction and can result in capital punishment, defendants must receive clear notification prior to their trial about this possibility so they can adequately defend themselves.

In the dissenting opinion for Bryan Stuart Lankford v. Idaho, Justice Blackmun criticized the majority's decision to uphold Lankford's death sentence despite serious procedural errors during his trial. He argued that Lankford was not given adequate notice that he could face a capital sentence, violating his constitutional right to due process. The justice pointed out that even though both sides had presented arguments on whether or not a separate sentencing hearing was required in this case, the court did not address this issue in its ruling. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how Idaho law allowed judges rather than juries to decide on death sentences and questioned if such practice met Eighth Amendment standards of reliability. In conclusion, Justice Blackmun believed it was inappropriate for the Supreme Court to affirm a death sentence when there were significant questions about fairness and constitutionality involved.