With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". treats all persons convicted of a designated offense not as uniquely individual human beings, but as members of a faceless, undifferentiated mass to be subjected to the blind infliction of the penalty of death.”). Based on the above analysis, one can glean a clear dichotomy. First, under Supreme Court precedent, the Texas “special issues” sufficiently individualize capital sentencing hearings because the individuality of a defendant’s background is relevant to the jury’s consideration of the second special issue. However, under the Texas evidentiary scheme, a psychiatrist’s “scientific” testimony that a defendant will be a “future danger,” even if given without examining the defendant, and even if based solely on the crime a defendant has committed, 2658, 2670, 125 L.Ed.2d 290 (1993) (<HOLDING>). 4 . In Penry, the Supreme Court held the

A: holding that the second special issue allowed jurors to adequately consider the youth of an accused murderer as mitigating evidence
B: holding that the trier of fact must be allowed to consider and give effect to all relevant mitigating evidence
C: holding that a capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled to have prospective jurors informed of the race of the victim and questioned on the issue of racial bias
D: holding that the sentencing structure allowed the jury to give mitigating effect to petitioners prison record
A.