The revival of the use of victim impact evidence during capital sentencing has been among the most significant products of the victims' rights movement over the past decade. The Supreme Court in Payne v. Tennessee reversed its own recent precedent holding such evidence to be unconstitutional and also left only a vague and malleable standard for limiting its admissibility. As a result, victim impact evidence can become, if it has not already, a major setback in the country's longstanding interest in careful and consistent sentencing. Limitations that Congress or the courts could establish to protect against boundless expansion of this already controversial evidentiary trend include narrowing the pool of qualified victim impact witnesses, pre-trial disclosure of victim impact testimony, limiting the number of witnesses, and using a two-pronged standard of due process. Notes and 86 references