From the "be careful what you ask for" file, comes this story by Michael Kiefer of the Arizona Republic. In Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584 (2002), the Supreme Court decided that it violates the Sixth Amendment to have judges decide the facts that make a case eligible to be considered for the death penalty. The facts that the high court had previously considered and rejected precisely the same argument and that states had massively relied on that holding were but minor considerations. In fact, the opinion did not mention reliance at all.

In Arizona, according to the story, "Defense attorneys at the time of the decision believed that juries would be more lenient with defendants, but the opposite has proved to be true." By a factor of three, it turns out.

Defense counsel are hopeful they can get better at bringing in life verdicts from juries, the article says. Yes, the fine art of Oprahfication of sentencing is one they hadn't needed to master until Ring.

Ring himself got a deal for a life sentence.