Final answer:
The Payne v. Tennessee case allowed victim impact statements to be considered during the sentencing phase of capital murder trials, overturning previous restrictions on their use.
Step-by-step explanation:
How did Payne v. Tenn. change the law in victim impact statements? In the landmark case of Payne v. Tennessee, the United States Supreme Court made a significant change to the consideration of victim impact statements in the sentencing phase of capital murder trials. Previously, such statements were thought to potentially prejudice the jury and were therefore often not permitted. However, the Payne v. Tennessee decision overturned two earlier Supreme Court cases, Booth v. Maryland and South Carolina v. Gathers, which had restricted the use of victim impact statements during the sentencing phase on the grounds that they could divert the jury from deciding the case on evidence concerning the defendant. The Court, in Payne, acknowledged that the Eighth Amendment does not bar the admission of these statements, allowing for family members of victims to present oral or written statements about the impact of the crime on their lives, which may now be considered by juries in determining whether to impose the death penalty.