Citation network
Penry Vs. Lynaugh
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 1989
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 302 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
U.S. 302 (1989) Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
which, under Teague v. LaneSearch
-
existed at the time the defendant's conviction became final. Id. at 489 U. S. 301 . Here, since Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 586 , and Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
Court denied his certiorari petition on direct review, he is entitled to the benefit of those decisions under Griffith v. KentuckySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 314 . The rule that petitioner seeks does not impose a new obligation on Texas, because Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
penalty based on petitioner's mitigating evidence would allow it the sort of unbridled discretion prohibited by Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U. S. 238 . As Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense. Cf., e.g., Ford v. WainwrightSearch
-
as part of the legal definition of insanity, and since Ford v. WainwrightSearch
-
sentenced to death. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Penry v. StateSearch
-
of Penry's mental retardation. Id. at 654-655. This Court denied certiorari on direct review. Sub nom. Penry v. TexasSearch
-
cruel and unusual punishment to execute a mentally retarded person such as himself. Id. at 918 (citing Brogdon v. ButlerSearch
-
Ibid. (quoting Sanders v. PageSearch
-
United States, 373 U. S. 1 , 373 U. S. 25 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting)). See also Mackey v. UnitedSearch
-
supra, at 401 U. S. 695 (opinion concurring in judgments in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Desist v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 394 U. S. 244 , 394 U. S. 263 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting)). See generally Yates v. AikenSearch
-
U. S. 211 , 484 U. S. 216 -217 (1988) (concluding that Francis v. FranklinSearch
-
merely an application of the principle that governed our decision in Sandstrom v. MontanaSearch
-
when this Court denied his petition for certiorari on direct review of his conviction and sentence. Sub nom. Penry v. TexasSearch
-
supra. This Court's decisions in Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. Page 492 U. S. 315 586 (1978), and Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
were rendered before his conviction became final. Under the retroactivity principles adopted in Griffith v. KentuckySearch
-
facial validity of the Texas death penalty statute, which was upheld against an Eighth Amendment challenge in Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
mitigating evidence can be fully considered by the sentencer in the absence of special jury instructions. See Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
Amendment, however, the sentencer must be allowed to consider mitigating evidence. Ibid. Indeed, as Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
the Eighth Amendment mandates an individualized assessment of the appropriateness of the death penalty. In Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
noted that neither the Texas statute upheld in 1976 nor the statutes that had survived facial challenges in Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
U. S. 153 (1976), and Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
Lockett, supra, at 438 U. S. 607 . Cf. Hitchcock v. DuggerSearch
-
Godfrey Page 492 U. S. 318 v. GeorgiaSearch
-
challenge to Georgia death penalty statute). In Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
California v. BrownSearch
-
The sentencer must also be able to consider and give effect to that evidence in imposing sentence. Hitchcock v. DuggerSearch
-
and that it could give mitigating effect to that evidence in imposing sentence. Like the petitioner in Franklin v. LynaughSearch
-
as that term is commonly understood. California v. BrownSearch
-
U.S. at 479 U. S. 545 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). See also Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
based on Penry's mitigating evidence, would be to return to the sort of unbridled discretion that led to Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Franklin, 487 U.S. at 487 U. S. 184 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting California v. BrownSearch
-
and would impose a new obligation on the States and the Federal Government. Ibid. (citing Ford v. WainwightSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial