In the case of Jonathan Dale Simmons v. South Carolina, 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Simmons who was convicted for murder and sentenced to death by a jury that was not informed about his parole eligibility if he were given a life sentence instead. The defense argued that because South Carolina law made him ineligible for parole due to prior convictions, this information should have been shared with jurors as it could have influenced their decision-making process regarding sentencing. The prosecution maintained that such details are irrelevant and potentially prejudicial during penalty phase deliberations. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this stance stating that when future dangerousness is an issue in capital cases - which it was here - defendants must be allowed to inform juries they would never be released on parole if given a life sentence.

In the dissenting opinion for Jonathan Dale Simmons v. South Carolina, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Thomas and O'Connor, argued that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent or logic. They contended that a defendant does not have a constitutional right to inform jurors of his parole ineligibility unless the prosecution argues he presents future dangerousness. The dissenters believed this information could confuse jurors who might think they are sentencing someone to life without parole when they are actually deciding between death and life with possibility of parole. Furthermore, they pointed out that many factors can affect decisions about future release which cannot be accurately predicted at trial; thus it is misleading to suggest otherwise. Lastly, they criticized the majority for creating an exception based on speculation about juror assumptions rather than clear legal principles.