Schriro v. Summerlin

About this case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2004 United States Supreme Court case

Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a requirement that a different Supreme Court decision requiring the jury rather than the judge to find aggravating factors would not be applied retroactively.[2]

Facts

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schriro_v._Summerlin&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: 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 factors . 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 _,[1] 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

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schriro_v._Summerlin&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: 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

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schriro_v._Summerlin&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: References")
]

Jump up to: 1 2 _Ring v. Arizona _, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).
↑ Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004).

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schriro_v._Summerlin&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: External links")
]

Text of Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) is available from: Findlaw Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schriro_v._Summerlin&oldid=1351340622 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Schriro v. Summerlin

Add languages Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

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

holding that provisions of Arizona’s sentencing scheme that allowed a judge to find those aggravating factors authorizing the death penalty violate the Sixth Amendment

holding that Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) did not announce a watershed rule

holding that such errors do not offend any \watershed\ rule of criminal procedure to the extent of requiring retroactive application

holding that such errors do not offend any “watershed” rule of criminal procedure to the extent of requiring retroactive application

holding that Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002

concluding that Ring announced a new rule by overruling Walton, but, applying a standard virtually identical to section -122, refusing to apply Ring retroactively to cases already final

Schriro v. Summerlin

Citations

About this case

Facts

Result

See also

References

Further reading

External links

How courts have described this case

Cited by

Cites