''Schriro v. Summerlin'', 542 U.S. 348 (2004), was a case in which the

United States Supreme Court The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all U.S. federal court cases, and over state court cases that turn on question ...

held that a requirement that a different Supreme Court decision requiring the

jury A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence, make Question of fact, findings of fact, and render an impartiality, impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a sentence (law), penalty or Judgmen ...

rather than the

judge A judge is a person who wiktionary:preside, presides over court proceedings, either alone or as a part of a judicial panel. In an adversarial system, the judge hears all the witnesses and any other Evidence (law), evidence presented by the barris ...

to find aggravating factors would not be applied retroactively..

Facts

In April 1981, Warren Wesley Summerlin killed a creditor who had come to his home in Phoenix, Arizona, to inquire about a debt. He was later convicted of first-degree murder and received a death sentence. Under Arizona law at the time, a jury decided the question of guilt but a judge sitting without a jury decided the question of penalty after receiving evidence regarding aggravating and

mitigating factor In criminal law, a mitigating factor, also known as an extenuating circumstance, is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in reduced charges or a lesser sente ...

s. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence. While the appeal in his habeas corpus case was pending in the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court decided '' Ring v. Arizona'',. which held that such aggravating factors had to be proved to a jury rather than a judge. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the ''Ring'' decision applied to Summerlin's case even though ''Ring'' was decided after Summerlin's conviction had become final on direct review. The state appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Result

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and stated that "we give retroactive effect to only a small set of 'watershed rules of criminal procedure implementing the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding.' That a new procedural rule is 'fundamental' in some abstract sense is not enough; the rule must be one 'without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished."

References

External links

* {{caselaw source , case = ''Schriro v. Summerlin'', {{ussc, 542, 348, 2004, el=no , findlaw =https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/542/348.html , justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/542/348/ , loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep542/usrep542348/usrep542348.pdf , oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-526 United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and death penalty case law Capital punishment in Arizona 2004 in United States case law United States Sixth Amendment sentencing case law

Facts

Result

See also

References

Further reading

External links