concurring. I concur because I disagree with the majority’s statement that “residual doubt is not an acceptable mitigating factor.” For the reasons stated in my concurrence in State v. McGuire (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 390, 405-406, 686 N.E.2d 1112, 1124, I believe residual doubt to be an important mitigating factor in our death penalty analysis. However, I do not believe that residual doubt is a factor in this case.
APPENDIX
“Proposition of Law No. 1: A jury waiver in a capital case is not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary unless the record indicates that the defendant is aware that error in the admission of evidence will be held harmless on appeal unless it is affirmatively shown that the three-judge panel hearing the case relied in its decision on the inadmissible evidence.
“Proposition of Law No. 2: Evidentiary Rulings at the guilt phase of a capital trial, even a trial before a three-judge panel, can deprive a defendant of his rights under the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Ohio.
“Proposition of Law No. 3: A prosecutor may not argue uncharged death specifications during closing argument at the mitigation phase of a capital trial and may not urge a three-judge panel to refuse to perform its statutory duty.
“Proposition of Law No. 4: When the R.C. 2929.03(F) opinion of a three-judge panel in a capital case explicitly indicates that the weighing of the aggravating circumstance against the mitigating factors was skewed by improperly considered victim impact statements, unwarranted speculation about the likelihood of future criminal behavior by the defendant, and erroneous treatment of the nature and circumstance of the offense as a factor to be weighed against mitigation, the panel has failed in its function as a gatekeeper and displayed the sort of bias against the defendant which makes the panel’s determination of the appropriate sentence a sham and required that the sentence of death be vacated.
“Proposition of Law No. 5: Ohio death penalty law is unconstitutional both in the abstract and as applied.
“Proposition of Law No: 6: Ohio’s death penalty law as applied violated R.C. 2929.05(A) by requiring appellate courts and the Supreme Court, in conducting their R.C. 2929.05(A) review of ‘similar cases’ for proportionality, to review only those in which a sentence of death was imposed and ignore those in which a sentence of life with parole eligibility after twenty full years or life with parole *433eligibility after thirty full years was imposed. This application of R.C. 2929.05(A) also violates the rights to fair trial and due process and results in the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment as set forth in the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and in Sections 1, 2, 5, 9,10,16, and 20, Article I of the Ohio Constitution.
“Proposition of Law No. 7: When independent review of the death sentence in a capital case reveals that the aggravating circumstances do not outweigh the mitigating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, the sentence of death must be reversed.
“Proposition of Law No. 8: A death sentence is wrongly imposed and will be reversed when it is inappropriate and not proportional to the sentence imposed in similar cases.”