CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED HEREIN ARE BASED ON EVALUATION OF EMPIRICAL DATA AND ANALYSIS OF NUMEROUS APPELLATE OPINIONS. THE JULY 1976 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DEATH PENALTY DECISIONS RELY ON APPELLATE REVIEW TO HELP ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT SCHEMES. EVALUATION OF THE RECORD, HOWEVER, INDICATES THAT THE APPELLATE REVIEW SYSTEM HAS FAILED TO MEET THESE EXPECTATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, ALTHOUGH THE DECISIONS OF THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT CONTAIN EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS OF SUBSTANTIVE CAPITAL SENTENCING ISSUES IN SUCH CASES AS PRESNELL V. STATE (1976), AND STEPHENS V. STATE (1976), THE COURT HAS NOT YET DEVELOPED A USEFUL FRAMEWORK FOR SCRUTINIZING INDIVIDUAL SENTENCES. THE COURT, IN FOCUSING ON THE EXISTENCE OF STATUTORY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES, HAS DEFINED THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES SO BROADLY THAT IT IS SELDOM DIFFICULT TO FIND THEM. LITTLE ATTENTION HAS BEEN PAID TO POTENTIALLY MITIGRATING CONSIDERATIONS OR TO THE BALANCING OF AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. SIMILARLY, THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAS NOT PROVIDED EFFECTIVE APPELLATE REVIEW. ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAS BEEN FAR MORE WILLING TO REDUCE DEATH PENALTIES THAN ITS GEORGIA COUNTERPART, IT REQUIRES EXTRAORDINARY JUSTIFICATION FOR A TRIAL JUDGE TO OVERRIDE A JURY ADVISORY VERDICT FAVORING LENIENCY. IN TEXAS, APPELLATE REVIEW IS DIFFICULT TO EVALUATE BECAUSE THE COURT HAS NOT CLEARLY DEFINED THE JURY'S FUNCTION. THE TEXAS COURT WILL USUALLY CONSIDER ONLY WHETHER THE RECORD CONTAINS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AFFIRMATIVE FINDINGS ON THE SPECIAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE JURY AND WILL DO SO ONLY IF SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED. IN ALL THREE STATES, THE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE RARELY HELD DEATH SENTENCES INVALID ON THEIR MERITS. THE APPELLATE REVIEW PROCESSES HAVE NOT RESULTED IN APPELLATE OPINIONS WHICH ENCOURAGE CONSISTENT SENTENCING PRACTICES, AND ALL THREE STATE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT REGARDING PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS. TABLES AND FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (LWM)