He said Supreme Court cases have revealed that "a significant number of defendants in capital cases have not been provided with fully competent legal representation at trial." In addition, Stevens said he had reviewed records that showed "special risks of unfairness" in capital punishment.

Juries might not be balanced because people who have qualms about capital punishment can be excluded by prosecutors, he said. He questioned whether potential jurors are distracted by extensive questions about their death penalty views.

A statement from a victim's family, Stevens said, sometimes "serves no purpose other than to encourage jurors to decide in favor of death rather than life on the basis of their emotions rather than their reason."

Justice Stevens' comments could not come at a better time. With the confirmation hearings of Judge John Roberts less than a month away, it is critical that Senators question him on his views of the death penalty. There are four death cases on the Court's October calendar. Information released so far indicates Roberts has a hostile view towards death penalty appeals.

In 1992, Judge Roberts helped prepare a brief arguing that if a defendant was convicted in a fair trial, it was constitutional to execute him regardless of new evidence suggesting his innocence. A 6-3 Supreme Court agreed, and the Texas inmate was executed four months later.

...Judge Roberts's office fought to help states speed executions by limiting appeals and to reverse a state-court ruling that such victim-impact statements violated the Eighth Amendment, which guarantees protection from "cruel and unusual punishments."