HILL, Circuit Judge:
Roy Allen Stewart brought this federal habeas petition challenging his sentence of death. His petition sets forth four claims for relief; (1) comments made by the trial judge diminished the role of the jury in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), (2) improper exclusion of a juror in violation of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), (3) ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, and (4) racial discrimination in imposing the death penalty. The federal district court denied relief on all four claims. We affirm.
The facts surrounding Stewart’s 1979 conviction are sufficiently detailed by the Florida Circuit Court’s order denying state habeas relief:
The victim, Margaret Haizlip, a woman of small physical stature, in her late seventies, was a pioneer of South Florida living in a small home across from Stewart’s temporary residence. About 10:00 p.m. Mrs. Haizlip was out on her porch and saw Stewart. She waived [sic] to him, invited him into her home and fixed him a sandwich. Shortly thereafter he went to her bathroom and stole a gold watch from the medicine cabinet. Mrs. Haizlip, after going into the bathroom confronted the defendant, apparently about the stolen watch, whereupon Stewart beat and pummelled Mrs. Haizlip unmercifully about her ribs, face and head. While so doing, the defendant was tearing the clothing and ultimately the underwear from her body. As she lay on the floor, bleeding from her face, moaning and “making noises,” the defendant forcibly had sexual intercourse with her in a manner so vicious so as to tear her vagina. The defendant thereupon fastened a cord with an iron attached to it around her neck, pulled tightly on the cord and thereby strangled her leaving a ligature mark on her neck.
The medical examiner testified the victim suffered eight broken ribs, multiple contusions, and her larynx was broken. A bite mark was identified on her thigh, and what appeared to be a bite mark was on her breast. There were blood stains and disarray in the living room and bedroom area of her house, indicating the victim was fighting and running for her life. The defendant left the victim at the scene with blood on his hands.
Sentence Order dated July 26, 1979 at 3-4.
On September 19, 1986, the governor of Florida signed a death warrant (Stewart’s second). Stewart’s execution was subsequently scheduled to occur on October 7, 1986. Stewart commenced various collateral attacks in state court; a previous round of state collateral attacks had proved unsuccessful. After Stewart’s claims were rejected a second time by the Florida state courts, Stewart commenced this federal ha-beas proceeding. On October 5, Stewart’s petition was denied by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The district court, however, granted a certificate of probable cause to appeal, but denied a stay of execution. In view of the fact that the district court had granted a certificate of probable cause to [1489]*1489appeal, we granted a stay of execution. Stewart v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d 395 (11th Cir.1986); see Eleventh Circuit Rule 22-3; Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983).
I. COMMENTS IMPLICATING CALDWELL V. MISSISSIPPI
A. Legislative Predetermination of the Sentence
Stewart contends that comments made during voir dire diminished the role of the jury in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). During voir dire, the trial court asked the following question of a juror:
Just briefly, let me ask you about capital punishment. We have to ask this question, ... because this is one of those cases where the legislature has said that the death penalty is the appropriate penalty.
Trial Transcript at 409. Stewart claims the impact of this statement was compounded by the judge’s earlier comment to the jury that: “You will assume that all the proper evidence and the proper law will be presented to you.” Id. at 358-59.
Stewart argues the effect of the judge’s comment was to instruct the jury that the appropriateness of his execution had already been decided by the state legislature. In the context of the entire trial, however, it is clear that the jurors were under no such impression. Although the trial judge’s question to the prospective juror was inartfully phrased, the trial judge intended to convey the message (1) that the legislature had determined the death penalty to be appropriate in the narrow class of homicides in which aggravating circumstances are present, (2) that the prosecutor intends to present evidence of such aggravating circumstances in this case, and (3) that the jury may impose death if aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances. Throughout voir dire, the jury was informed that not all murders call for capital punishment and that a finding of guilt as to first degree murder does not require a verdict of death. Id. at 275, 344, 348, 415, 419, 482, 490, 506, 566. On at least eighteen occasions the trial judge referred to the fact that death can only be imposed under appropriate circumstances. Id. at 298, 299, 302, 309, 397, 400, 407, 441, 458, 461, 463, 479, 480, 513, 518, 526, 527, 550; see also id. at 535, 567-68 (comments of counsel). The jury was specifically informed during voir dire that they would be required to weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances during the sentencing phase. Id. at 392, 444. Furthermore, the terms aggravating and mitigating circumstances were defined during voir dire. Id. at 530-33. Most significantly, the jury was informed that the legislature has only enacted guidelines as to when the sentence of death is appropriate. Id. at 203, 213, 347, 348, 371, 563. No error occurred in this regard.
B. The Advisory Role of the Jury
Our Caldwell analysis, however, does not end here. During the course of reviewing the Caldwell claim raised by Stewart, this court noticed other occasions where the defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial judge touched on functions of the jury which might have been asserted as implicating Caldwell in a manner different from that which had been suggested by Stewart. The court requested supplemental briefing on this issue; those briefs have been received and considered. We conclude that no Caldwell violation occurred.
It may not be inappropriate to indulge in a brief and elementary discussion of the interests and aspirations of the parties during the selection of a jury for the trial of a capital case.
Beyond question, the defendant would prefer to have on the jury those in the community who oppose the death penalty or have misgivings about its imposition. Where the state is seeking the death penalty, the prosecutor, as advocate, would prefer those who find death to be an appropriate penalty.
During the questioning of prospective jurors on voir dire, much can be learned about their inclinations, predilections, and [1490]*1490deeply held convictions and biases. Some indicate that they are opposed to the death penalty. A prospective juror does not for that reason alone become disqualified to serve, Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980); Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), but it can fairly be said that, all other things being equal, the defendant would desire to have that juror serve and the prosecutor would have misgivings about him or her.
There are two ways of eliminating a prospective juror from the final jury. Each side of the case is entitled to a limited number of peremptory strikes and can eliminate prospective jurors without any stated reason. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 913.08 (West 1985); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.350 (West 1975 and Supp.1987). The trial counsel prefers to conserve these very valuable peremptory strikes and therefore prefers that the undesirable person be eliminated without the expenditure of a peremptory. Sometimes this can be accomplished by demonstrating that the prospective juror is disqualified. Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 913.03, 913.-13 (West 1985).
There are a variety of disqualifications. Here, however, we are concerned only with the disqualification resulting from the prospective juror’s feelings about capital punishment. If the juror’s opposition to the death penalty is so strong that it would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath,” the juror would be disqualified. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424, 105 S.Ct. 844, 852, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985) (footnote omitted), (quoting Adams, 448 U.S. at 45, 100 S.Ct. at 2526); see Campbell v. State, 227 So.2d 873, 876-77 (Fla.1969), cert. dismissed sub nom. Campbell v. Florida, 400 U.S. 801, 91 S.Ct. 7, 27 L.Ed.2d 33 (1970); Fla.Stat.Ann. § 913.13 (West 1985).
When a prospective juror has expressed disapproval of the death penalty on voir dire, the prosecutor, as trial advocate, has an interest in demonstrating that this disapproval is so great that the juror, being unable or unwilling to follow the law, is disqualified. On the other hand, defense counsel, wishing to have this juror remain qualified to serve, would be interested in developing from the juror a statement that, under certain circumstances, the juror’s reluctance vis-a-vis capital punishment might be overcome so that the juror could, in some posited case, vote in favor of capital punishment.1
With that background, we address the rule of law laid down in Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985) which has been the subject of lively discussion in this court with respect to the sentencing phase of the Florida trifurcated capital trial procedure.2 Cald[1491]*1491well’s rule is to the effect that jurors who are called upon to serve in the sentencing phase of a capital case must not be misled into believing that their responsibility is less than it really is under the law. Our recent discussions of the Caldwell rule have resulted from the fact that the function of the jury in a capital case in Florida, insofar as sentencing is concerned, is not final. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 921.141 (West 1985); Foster v. State, 518 So.2d 901, 902 (Fla.1987); Herring v. State, 446 So.2d 1049, 1056 (Fla.1984), cert. denied sub nom. Herring v. Florida, 469 U.S. 989, 105 S.Ct. 396, 83 L.Ed.2d 330 (1984); Thompson v. State, 328 So.2d 1, 5 (1976). Under the Florida death penalty law, the jurors, after finding the defendant guilty of first-degree murder, are required to hear and consider any further evidence touching upon aggravating circumstances, mitigating circumstances, the crime, and the defendant, and 4hen return an advisory verdict in favor of the death penalty or in favor of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 25 years. The judge presiding at the trial actually imposes the sentence which may be, under certain circumstances, agreeable to the advisory verdict or different. Thus, the final responsibility as to sentence rests upon the judge. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 921.141 (West 1985).
With that painfully redundant background, we turn to the case at bar. During voir dire prospective jurors were individually submitted to probing questions put to them by the judge, the prosecutor, and defense counsel. Responses ranging across the spectrum of human personality were elicited. A number of prospective jurors expressed great reluctance to impose the death penalty on anyone no matter how clearly guilty of gruesome capital crime that person might be shown to be. In the nature of things, defense counsel exhibited a genuine interest in seeing to it that such a juror remained qualified to serve so that the jury trying the case would include one or more of those jurors or, in the alternative, the prosecutor would be required to exercise a peremptory strike to remove that juror and no longer have that peremptory available to remove some other juror who might be more attractive to the defense than to the state. Therefore, it was important to defense counsel that the juror not state unequivocally that he or she could not, under any circumstances, vote in favor of the death penalty.
It may reasonably be expected that the sensitivity of a juror to the task of deciding life versus death rises as the decision approaches finality. A juror opposed to the death penalty might feel able to consider advising that it be imposed while being unable or unwilling to consider participating in its final imposition. Indeed, that is the teaching of Caldwell, Adams, Harich and Mann. Therefore, it became in the defendant’s best interest that the jurors who expressed death penalty reluctance be informed and advised that the jury verdict would be but an advisory verdict with ultimate responsibility for sentencing resting upon the judge. A juror opposed to the death penalty, but willing to follow the law as a member of an advisory jury, may well be better for a capital defendant than one not opposed to the death penalty who believes he is serving on a final sentencing jury. In this case, defense counsel did probe deeply into the understanding of Florida sentencing procedure by those jurors who had expressed opposition to the death penalty, undertaking to prevent their saying that they could never vote in favor of the death penalty by calling their attention to the fact that they would not be finally responsible for sentence. See Trial Transcript at 222, 223, 242, 552.
At first blush, it appears that we are faced with a paradox. Caldwell and its progeny indicate a constitutional right of the defendant to have a jury made up of persons who are aware of and impressed with the heavy responsibility of their sentence verdict. On the other hand, Wither-spoon forbids the exclusion of a prospective juror for cause if he or she has ex[1492]*1492pressed only general reservations about the death penalty; this clearly implies that a defendant participating in the selection of a jury for his capital trial is entitled to probe the mental attitudes, biases, and predilections of the prospective jurors and is entitled to rehabilitate jurors whose predilections are in the defendant’s best interests but whose first responses on voir dire indicate likely disqualification. See n. 3 at 17.
We resolve this apparent paradox by stating simply that jurors and prospective jurors are not to be misled. Jurors disinclined towards the death penalty are not to be misled into believing that, under the Florida law, if the jury returns a verdict in favor of the death penalty the defendant is automatically doomed. Those who could, in Florida, return an advisory verdict in favor of the death penalty so long as theirs was not the final responsibility, must be considered qualified to serve even though, if the jurors had final responsibility, they could not return such a verdict. On the other hand, the function of the jury and of the individual jurors must not be belittled by misstatement of the law. The defendant is entitled to have the jury made fully aware that the results of the sentencing deliberations will play an important part in the sentencing process. The law in Florida vis-a-vis the function of the judge and the jury in capital case sentencing is not arcane. A clear statement of the law as it exists is not unconstitutional. If there be any areas of potential dispute as to how the law should be paraphrased for voir dire inquiry, it may safely be said that the use of the version put to jurors by the defendant’s counsel, as set out infra, will not violate the rights of the defendant.
The approach taken in this case by the defendant may be discerned from interrogations of one witness, typical of a number of others. A Mrs. Thibodeau was a prospective juror put upon the parties at the voir dire. Counsel for the state, Attorney Godwin, had been interrogating another member of the array, a Mrs. Bouquio. Mr. Godwin had asked an entire group of jurors whether or not any of them had “any personal beliefs or personal philosophies or personal moral convictions that would affect you from sitting in [sic] of a human being, religious of philosophical beliefs?” In response to that question, Mrs. Bouquio had indicated some definite reluctance visa-vis capital punishment. Trial Transcript 170-172.
On her own motion, prospective juror Thibodeau made it known that she had the same reservations as did Mrs. Bouquio. Id. at 172. After the state's attorney had interrogated, defense counsel, Mr. Gold-stein, was allowed to question the prospective jurors. His dialogue with Mrs. Thibo-deau was as follows:
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Mrs. Thibodeau, you stated that you would rather not sit on this jury.
I don’t think that anybody, if they really searched their soles [sic], really wants to be in a position of making decisions like you have to be called upon to make here. But, in order for our society to go on and function, we have a duty. We have all got a duty.
Do you understand?
MRS. THIBODEAU: Yes.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Do you think you could put those conceptions aside and listen to the evidence and make a decision based on your personal experiences and backgrounds and interpret whatever evidence is laid out here before you or whatever testimony you hear, and sit back there with the other eleven people and arrive at a verdict of guilty or not guilty?
MRS. THIBODEAU: I could.
THE COURT: Do you think you could do that?
MRS. THIBODEAU: Yes, I could.
THE COURT: What did you say? I didn’t hear you.
MRS. THIBODEAU: I could.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Do you understand, that it is only if you find the defendant guilty of first degree murder, that you would even have to go in there and discuss capital punishment. Do you understand that?
MRS. THIBODEAU: Yes.
[1493]*1493MR. GOLDSTEIN: The first burden is the one that the State has to prove first degree murder.
Do you understand that?
MRS. THIBODEAU: Yes.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: If they do prove first degree murder, then they would have to come back here and all be brought back and then they would have to prove to you that you should recommend capital punishment.
Now, do you understand that that is a recommendation? You are not sentencing the defendant to anything.
Do you understand that?
All you are called upon is to make a recommendation.
Do you understand?
MRS. THIBODEAU: Right.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: That recommendation may or may not carry any weight with the Judge. Do you understand that?
MRS. THIBODEAU: You can recommend if six out of the eleven say that we want him electricuted [sic] is fine?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Fine. The other five, obviously, said no.
Now, you, make your recommendation to the Judge. The Judge does not have to follow it. She can do whatever she wants.
Do you understand that?
MRS. THIBODEAU: Yes.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Do you think you can handle that?
MRS. THIBODEAU: If I have to.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: You could follow the law, right?
MRS. THIBODEAU: Right.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: You have followed the law all of your life?
MRS. THIBODEAU: Yes.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: You wouldn’t have problems following the law, now, would you?
MRS. THIBODEAU: It is not an easy decision.
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Nobody ever said it is. Hopefully, you won’t have to make the decision. But, if it comes to it, all that the Judge wants to know is will you follow the law? It is as simple as that. You have followed it all your life. There is no reason you wouldn’t, now, right?
MRS. THIBODEAU: (No response.) Id. at 240-43.
In summary, we conclude that Stewart is not entitled to complain, in a petition for federal habeas corpus, that the jurors’ sense of responsibility for the verdict was diminished by having the advisory nature of the jury’s role called to their attention on voir dire. Defense counsel made comments directed toward this end, and did not object to similar comments made by the prosecutor and the trial judge. Addressing this issue at voir dire was probably beneficial to the defense, in that it increased the probability that a juror opposed to the death penalty might be empaneled. A prospective juror who could not bring himself to impose the death penalty might nevertheless find within himself the ability to recommend the death penalty. Making the advisory nature of the jury’s role clear at voir dire thus results in a greater likelihood that a person opposed to the death penalty may nevertheless serve on the jury; such a person is clearly an ally of the defense.3
[1494]*1494II. IMPROPER EXCLUSION OF A POTENTIAL JUROR
Stewart contends that the exclusion for cause of a potential juror (Tom Gillis) constituted a violation of Witherspoon. The venireman’s comments 4 unambiguously show that his views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. at 412, 424, 105 S.Ct. at 846, 852. The factual finding by the trial judge that this venireman could not perform his responsibility as a juror in a capital case should be given deference under Sumner v. Mata, 455 U.S. 591, 597, 102 S.Ct. 1303, 1307, 71 L.Ed.2d 480 (1982); see Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. at 426-30, 105 S.Ct. at 853-55; 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1982). No Witherspoon violation occurred in this case.
III. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Stewart asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). We reject this claim. The physical evidence available to the state in this case was overwhelming. Additionally, Stewart confessed to police. In the face of this evidence, defense counsel, at trial, argued that Stewart was innocent. Even after the jury returned a verdict of guilty, counsel used a portion of his allotted time during sentencing to argue that Stewart was innocent.
Stewart now contends that the reliance upon a claim of innocence, to the exclusion of all else, was ineffective and resulted in defense counsel’s failure to investigate Stewart’s background sufficiently. Stewart claims that evidence of his mental condition, background, and character would have changed the result of the sentencing proceeding. He relies upon a psychological examination conducted four years after his conviction which concludes Stewart had been mentally ill his entire life. Stewart also claims that witnesses were available to defense counsel who could have “evoked a sympathetic response” from the jury had they been contacted by defense counsel.
Trial counsel made a strategic decision that in light of the atrocious nature of the offense, Stewart’s only chance of avoiding the death penalty was if some seed of doubt, even if insufficient to constitute reasonable doubt, could be placed in the minds of the jury. This court has repeatedly recognized the impact such an argument may have upon a jury. See Johnson v. Wainwright, 806 F.2d 1479, 1482 (11th Cir.1986) (citing cases), cert. denied sub nom. Johnson v. Dugger, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 205, 98 L.Ed.2d 157 (1987); Smith v. Balkcom, 660 F.2d 573, 580-81 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), modified on other grounds, 671 F.2d 858 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882, 103 S.Ct. 181, 74 L.Ed.2d 148 (1982). Every court which has ruled upon Stewart’s claims has recognized that under the circumstances of this rape and murder, defense counsel had little with which to work in arguing against death. Trial counsel cannot be faulted for attempting to make the best of a bad situation.
Defense counsel presented a logical and well-constructed argument inviting the jury to believe that the defendant left the victim alive and another party, said to be a dope addict, committed the murder. This was a classic attempt to create lingering doubt in the minds of jurors as to Stewart’s guilt. See Johnson v. Wainwright, 806 F.2d at 1482; Smith v. Balkcom, 660 F.2d at 580-81. Counsel was not constitutionally deficient for devoting his resources, both in terms of argument time and pre-trial investigation, to such a strategy.
[1495]*1495Even were we to find trial counsel’s conduct in this regard to fall below the performance standard of Strickland, no prejudice has occurred. Stewart now proffers the testimony of additional character witnesses who he claims should have been called to testify at trial. We are not persuaded that these witnesses would have had any significant impact upon the trial. Such testimony would have merely been cumulative. The evidence which Stewart now claims should have been presented to the jury would not have had an effect on their verdict.
IV. RACIALLY DISCRIMINATORY IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY
Finally, Stewart claims that the death penalty is imposed in a racially discriminatory manner in the state of Florida. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McCleskey v. Kemp, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987), this claim is without merit. See Ford v. Strickland, 734 F.2d 538, 541 n. 2 (11th Cir.1984).
For the reasons set forth herein, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
APPENDIX
THE COURT: Mr. Gillis, you have heard all of the questions that the attorneys have been asking and the—
MR. GILLIS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now seated—
MR. GILLIS: I don’t believe in capital punishment at all.
THE COURT: Under any facts or circumstances?
MR. GILLIS: No, ma’am.
THE COURT: Let us take it in the two part question.
Do you feel that your feelings about capital punishment would prevent you from reaching a decision as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant in the first trial?
MR. GILLIS: No.
THE COURT: Do you feel there are no circumstances, no matter how atrocious or heinous or cruel, that could be presented or shown to you that would warrant you in recommending — and only in recommendation — to the Court that the death penalty be imposed?
Trial Transcript at 425-26.
MR. SHERMAN: Is it that you really understand no set of circumstances that you could impose the death penalty, or any other reason why you don’t want to serve on this jury?
MR. GILLIS: I mean, in the Manson case, I would think about it hard in something like that. But, I just don’t think I could.
MR. SHERMAN: But, you would consider it in the Manson case?
MR. GILLIS: Sure, I would, but I don’t think that—
THE COURT: What?
MR. GILLIS: I would consider it, but I don’t think that I could do it.
THE COURT: You don’t think you could do it?
MR. SHERMAN: But, you are not sure? Would it be fair to say that you have to hear the facts and then maybe you could consider it? Is that a fair statement?
MR. GILLIS: Yes, sir.
MR. STELZER: Mr. Gillis, can you envision any set of circumstances in this case where you could look at that person and say that, “I recommend that he be sentenced to death in the electric chair.”
Can you do that?
Mr. Gillis: If I saw gross and gorey pictures.
THE COURT: What did he say?
MR. GILLIS: If I saw a lot of gorey pictures and they turned my stomach and everything, I guess I could.
MR. STELZER: Wihat if the law makes no mention of gorey pictures at all, and in the law it has nothing to do with gorey pictures as to whether or not you will recommend death or life imprisonment?
[1496]*1496MR. SHERMAN: I will object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Form is improper. Sustained.
MR. STELZER: Can you form in your own opinion whether it will relate to death penalty, and follow the law even if the law is totally different than what you think?
MR. GILLIS: I really don’t think that any case deserves the death penalty except on — I stuttered when I said that.
MR. STELZER: Say what you said.
MR. GILLIS: (No response.)
THE COURT: Say what you said, I want to hear it.
MR. STELZER: Would you tell, Your Honor, the comment that you made.
MR. SHERMAN: I object, Your Honor.
MR. GILLIS: All I said was that I stuttered when I said that.
THE COURT: Oh, I see.
Will the attorneys and the court reporter please come side bar.
(Thereupon, Counsel for the respective parties and the court reporter approached the bench and the following proceedings were had:)
MR. STELZER: Challenge for cause.
MR. SHERMAN: Objection, Your Hon- or. All he said at the end was I don’t think that the death penalty — he doesn’t think that he would vote for the death penalty. He doesn’t think it is deserved of anyone. Under an atrocious crime, he could consider it.
THE COURT: He finally said he wouldn’t vote to impose the penalty, but he said that under the facts of Charles Manson, he could.
Over objections of Defense, Mr. Gillis is excused for cause.
Id. at 436-39.