In the 1989 case Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al. v. Jeffers, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on an appeal from a death row inmate in Arizona who claimed that his sentence was unconstitutional because it was based on aggravating factors not found by a jury beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that under Arizona law at the time of Jeffers' trial and sentencing (prior to Ring v. Arizona), judges were allowed to determine whether there were any mitigating circumstances sufficient enough to call for leniency after finding one or more statutory aggravating factors existed in order to impose capital punishment. Therefore, even though this procedure would be deemed unconstitutional post-Ring v. Arizona (2002), it did not violate due process when applied during Jeffers’ trial and sentencing as per laws then existing.

In the dissenting opinion for Lewis, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections et al. v. Jeffers (1989), Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to remand the case back to state court for further proceedings on whether or not there was an abuse of discretion in sentencing Jeffers to death. He argued that this action was unnecessary because it had already been determined by both state and federal courts that no such abuse occurred. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were procedural errors during trial, they did not affect the outcome since substantial evidence supported a finding of extreme cruelty - one of two aggravating factors required under Arizona law for imposition of capital punishment. Therefore, according to Scalia’s view point any error would be harmless beyond reasonable doubt and wouldn’t warrant overturning his sentence.