In the case of Maggio, Warden v. Fulford in 1982, the United States Supreme Court addressed an appeal from a habeas corpus petitioner who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The petitioner claimed that his constitutional rights were violated because he was not allowed to present mitigating evidence during his sentencing hearing. He argued that this omission led to an arbitrary and capricious imposition of capital punishment, which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument. It held that there was no constitutional requirement for a separate sentencing hearing where mitigating evidence could be presented in capital cases. Furthermore, it found no violation of due process or equal protection principles in Louisiana’s bifurcated trial system (where guilt and sentence are determined separately), nor any arbitrariness or caprice in its application. Therefore, even though some states may allow defendants to present such evidence at their discretion as part of their criminal procedure rules, there is no federal constitutional mandate requiring them to do so.

In the dissenting opinion for Maggio, Warden v. Fulford (1982), Justice White argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief was incorrect because it relied on a misinterpretation of precedent and an improper application of federal law. He contended that the state court had not made any unreasonable determination in its handling of Fulford's case, particularly regarding his mental competency at trial and during sentencing. Justice White also criticized the majority for failing to give proper deference to state courts' findings, as required by 28 U.S.C §2254(d). Furthermore, he expressed concern about how this ruling could potentially undermine states' authority over their own criminal justice systems by encouraging federal courts to second-guess their decisions without sufficient cause or justification.