In the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case, Pervis Tyrone Payne v. Tennessee, the court upheld a death sentence despite allegations of racial bias in sentencing decisions. Payne, an African American man was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering a white woman and her daughter in Tennessee. He appealed his conviction on grounds that evidence of racial discrimination had been ignored during jury selection and sentencing phases of his trial - citing Batson v Kentucky (1986) which prohibited exclusion of jurors based on race. The Supreme Court ruled against him with a 6-3 majority decision stating that he failed to make out a prima facie case under Batson because he did not show enough evidence proving purposeful discrimination by prosecutors during jury selection process or at sentencing phase. The court also overruled its own precedent set in Booth v Maryland (1987) & South Carolina v Gathers (1989), deciding victim impact statements were admissible as they provided information about victims' personal characteristics and emotional impact on their families – factors relevant to juries when determining appropriate punishment within statutory limits set by law. This ruling significantly impacted capital cases across America as it allowed more leeway for prosecutors to present emotionally charged testimony from victims’ family members during penalty phase trials potentially influencing juries towards harsher sentences including death penalty.

In the dissenting opinion for Pervis Tyrone Payne v. Tennessee, Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan and Justice Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision to allow victim impact statements in capital sentencing proceedings was a departure from precedent without justification. They contended that such evidence is irrelevant to the defendant's character or crime severity and only serves to inflame jurors' passions rather than inform their deliberations. The dissenters believed this ruling could lead juries to make decisions based on emotion rather than reason, potentially resulting in arbitrary death sentences. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential racial bias as studies suggested white victims were more likely to evoke sympathy from jurors leading them towards harsher penalties for defendants accused of killing whites compared with those accused of killing blacks.