In Harris v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not require a State to define the weight the sentencing judge must give to an advisory jury verdict. This article concludes that the Court's approval of the Alabama capital punishment procedure is compatible with its Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Specifically, the Court's treatment of the jury recommendation as one of many factors to be considered by the sentencer is consistent with prior caselaw. The article also describes sentencing schemes under the Eighth Amendment since Furman v. Georgia; presents Supreme Court caselaw on jury overrides; describes the jury's role in the sentencing stage of capital punishment; particularizes Harris, describing facts, procedural history, majority opinion and the dissent; evaluates Harris in light of the Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and evaluates the future of the jury override scheme; and concludes that Harris is consistent with prior caselaw and that there are many more Harrises to come. Notes