In the case of Tennessee v. Donald Ray Middlebrooks, 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state law requiring a jury to impose death penalty if it found that aggravating circumstances outweighed mitigating ones was unconstitutional. The court held that this violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because it did not allow for individualized sentencing in capital cases. The defendant, Donald Ray Middlebrooks had been convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death under this law by a Tennessee court. However, his sentence was overturned by the Supreme Court ruling which emphasized on considering both aggravating and mitigating factors before deciding on capital punishment.

In the dissenting opinion for Tennessee v. Donald Ray Middlebrooks, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court and failed to adequately protect constitutional rights. He contended that by allowing a "shock-the-conscience" test to determine if police conduct violated due process, it opened up too much discretion for individual judges and could lead to arbitrary decisions. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's assertion that there was no violation because Middlebrooks had not been physically harmed during his interrogation; arguing instead that psychological coercion can be just as damaging and should also be considered unconstitutional under certain circumstances. Finally, he expressed concern over potential abuses of power by law enforcement officials who might feel emboldened by this ruling to use more aggressive tactics in their interrogations.