<P> In the Furman v. Georgia case, the resident awoke in the middle of the night to find William Henry Furman committing burglary in his house . At trial, in an unsworn statement allowed under Georgia criminal procedure, Furman said that while trying to escape, he tripped and the weapon he was carrying fired accidentally, killing the victim . This contradicted his prior statement to police that he had turned and blindly fired a shot while fleeing . In either event, because the shooting occurred during the commission of a felony, Furman would have been guilty of murder and eligible for the death penalty under then - extant state law, according to the felony murder rule . Furman was tried for murder and was found guilty based largely on his own statement . Although he was sentenced to death, the punishment was never carried out . </P> <P> Jackson v. Georgia, like Furman, was also a death penalty case confirmed by the Supreme Court of Georgia . Unlike Furman, however, the convicted man in Jackson had not killed anyone, but attempted to commit armed robbery and committed rape in the process of doing so . Branch v. Texas was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States on appeal on certiorari to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals . Like Jackson, Branch was convicted of rape . </P> <P> In a 5--4 decision, the Court's one - paragraph per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution . However, the majority could not agree as to a rationale . There was no opinion of the court or plurality as none of the five justices constituting the majority joined in the opinion of any other . </P> <Ul> <Li> Justices Potter Stewart, Byron White and William O. Douglas expressed similar concerns about the apparent arbitrariness with which death sentences were imposed under the existing laws, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants . Because these opinions were the narrowest, finding only that the death penalty as currently applied was cruel and unusual, they are often considered the controlling majority opinions . Stewart wrote: </Li> </Ul>

In furman v georgia the us supreme court recognized that