context: P18 By contrast, the Court has held that sentencing rules that do not "prohibit the imposition of [a particular sentence] on a particular class of persons" are not substantive.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 497 U.S. 227, 242
citation_a.parenthetical: concluding that the substantive rule exception "has no application" to a new rule prohibiting the imposition of capital punishment by a jury that has been led to believe that the ultimate decision to impose the death penalty rests elsewhere
citation_a.sentence: See also Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 242, 110 S. Ct. 2822, 2831 (1990) (concluding that the substantive rule exception “has no application” to a new rule prohibiting the imposition of capital punishment by a jury that has been led to believe that the ultimate decision to impose the death penalty rests elsewhere).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 110 S. Ct. 1257, 1263-64
citation_b.parenthetical: concluding that a prohibition against instructing a death penalty jury to avoid sympathy when determining punishment is not a substantive rule
citation_b.sentence: Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 495, 110 S. Ct. 1257, 1263-64 (1990) (concluding that a prohibition against instructing a death penalty jury to avoid sympathy when determining punishment is not a substantive rule).