Jeniveve Devary v. Arkansas Department of Human Services and Minor Children

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that, in event of either restoration to competence or discovery of malingering, defendant can be tried and punished
• applying Atkins and holding that requiring a defendant to prove his or her mental retardation hy clear and convincing evidence was not unconstitutional
• noting that heinousness and depravity are often analyzed together
• discussing mitigating factors from Atkins and Tison and concluding that there is no right to a jury trial on either set of factors under Apprendi and its progeny
• discussing mitigating factors from Atkins and Tison and concluding that there is no right to a jury trial on either set of factors under Apprendi and its progeny
• rejecting the argument that a jury must find that a defendant is not mentally retarded because mental retardation is neither equivalent to an element of a crime nor a fact that increases the available penalty

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).