In the case of Zant, Warden v. Stephens in 1982, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a death sentence could be upheld if one of multiple aggravating circumstances justifying it was invalidated on appeal. The defendant, Tony Mack Panell (also known as Stephens), had been convicted for murder and sentenced to death based on three statutory aggravating circumstances under Georgia law. However, one of these factors - that he had previously committed capital felonies - was later deemed unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Court. Despite this ruling, his death sentence remained intact due to the other two valid factors: that he committed murder while escaping lawful custody and did so for monetary gain. The U.S Supreme Court affirmed this decision in an 8-1 vote stating that even though one factor used to justify a death penalty is invalid or unconstitutionally applied; it does not automatically invalidate the entire sentencing process or render it unreliable provided there are other valid reasons supporting such punishment.

In the dissenting opinion for Zant, Warden v. Stephens, Justice William Brennan Jr., joined by Justice Thurgood Marshall, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a death sentence despite one of its underlying aggravating circumstances being invalidated was fundamentally flawed. They contended that this approach violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment due to its arbitrariness. The justices believed it was impossible to determine if a jury would have reached the same conclusion without considering an invalid factor as an aggravating circumstance in their deliberations. Furthermore, they asserted that allowing such sentences could lead to inconsistent results based on which factors were considered valid or invalid after sentencing rather than at trial itself.