In Spaziano v. Florida (1983), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a death sentence imposed by a judge despite the jury's recommendation for life imprisonment, ruling that it did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment or Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The case involved Joseph Spaziano who was convicted of first-degree murder in Florida where state law allowed judges to override jury recommendations on sentencing in capital cases. In its decision, the court argued that juries do not have exclusive responsibility for fact-finding during sentencing and their role can be advisory rather than determinative under certain circumstances without violating constitutional rights of defendants.

In the dissenting opinion for Spaziano v. Florida, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision to uphold a death sentence imposed by a judge after a jury recommended life imprisonment violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. He contended that this practice was inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency because it allowed an individual who had not participated in trial proceedings to override a jury’s recommendation for mercy based on their own personal beliefs or biases. Furthermore, he stated that allowing judges to impose death sentences without any standard guidelines could lead to arbitrary and capricious sentencing decisions. In his view, only juries should have the power to decide whether capital punishment is appropriate as they represent community values better than judges do.