Summary

Schriro v. Summerlin — Syllabus (2004)

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers by Beth S. Brinkmann, Seth M. Galanter, David M. Porter, and Peter Goldberger; and for Welsh S. White et al. by Jeffrey T. Green, Mr. White, pro se, and Rudy Gerber, pro se.
Kate Lowenstein and Michael Avery filed a brief of amici curiae for Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation et al.
Source: Wikisource

Schriro v. Summerlin — Syllabus (2004)

Ring's holding is properly classified as procedural. It did not alter the range of conduct or the class of persons subject to the death penalty in Arizona, but only the method of determining whether the defendant engaged in that conduct. Pp. 353–355.
(c) Ring did not announce a watershed rule of criminal procedure. This Court cannot confidently say that judicial factfinding seriously diminishes accuracy. Pp.
Source: Wikisource

Schriro v. Summerlin — Syllabus (2004)

While respondent's subsequent federal habeas case was pending in the Ninth Circuit, this Court decided that Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490, required the existence of an aggravating factor to be proved to a jury rather than a judge under Arizona's scheme. Ring , 536 U.S. 584, 603–609. The Ninth Circuit invalidated respondent's death sentence, rejecting the argument that Ring did not apply because respondent's conviction and sentence had become final on direct review before Ring was decided.
Held: Ring does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review. Pp. 351–358.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature