Penry v. Lynaugh: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
==Opinion of the court== |
==Opinion of the court== |
||
Fuck tardos lets hang em |
|||
==Concurring and dissenting opinions== |
==Concurring and dissenting opinions== |
||
Revision as of 07:08, 8 July 2007
| Penry v. Lynaugh | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 11, 1989 Decided June 26, 1989 | |
| Full case name | Johnny Paul Penry v. Lynaugh, Director of the Texas Department of Corrections |
| Citations | 492 U.S. 302 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Writ of habeas corpus challenging death sentence denied by United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, 832 F.2d 915 (5th Cir. 1987); cert. granted, 487 U.S. 1233 (1988) |
| Subsequent | Subsequent death sentence affirmed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and then the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; affirmed by the Fifth Circuit, 215 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 2000); sentence vacated, 532 U.S. 782 (2001) |
| Holding | |
| The Eighth Amendment does not forbid executing the mentally retarded; however, the three "special issues" a Texas jury is required to consider before imposing the death penalty did not adequately allow the jury in Penry's sentencing hearing to consider his alleged mental retardation as a mitigating factor. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor |
| Concur/dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
| Concur/dissent | Stevens, joined by Blackmun |
| Concur/dissent | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, Kennedy |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. VIII | |
Overruled by | |
| Tennard v. Dretke; Atkins v. Virginia | |
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), sanctioned the death penalty for mentally retarded offenders because the Court determined executing the mentally retarded was not "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment. However, because Texas law did not allow the jury to give adequate consideration as a mitigating factor to Penry's mental retardation at the sentencing phase of the trial, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings. Eventually, Penry was retried for capital murder, again sentenced to death, and again the Supreme Court ruled, in Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001), that the jury was not able to adequately consider Penry's mental retardation as a mitigating factor at the sentencing phase of the trial. Ultimately, Penry was spared the death penalty because of the Supreme Court's ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), which, while not directly overruling the holding in Penry, did give considerable negative treatment to "Penry" on the basis that the Eighth Amendment allowed execution of the mentally retarded.
Facts
Opinion of the court
Fuck tardos lets hang em