Citation network
Ring Vs. Arizona
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 2002
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
-
U.S. 584 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Ring V. ArizonaSearch
-
Ring would be eligible for the death penalty only if he was, inter alia, the victim's actual killer. See Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
jury trial guarantee by entrusting to a judge the finding of a fact raising the defendant's maximum penalty. See Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
Jersey, 530 U. S. 466. The State responded that this Court had upheld Arizona's system in Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
guiding the choice between life and death. 497 U. S., at 648. Walton drew support from Cabana v. BullockSearch
-
right, and recognizing that the Arizona court's construction of the State's own law is authoritative, see Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
of an element or elements to the definition of a crime in order to narrow its scope. See, e. g., United States v. LopezSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
has overruled prior decisions where, as here, the necessity and propriety of doing so has been established. Patterson v. McLeanSearch
-
or absence of the aggravating factors required by Arizona law for imposition of the death penalty. In Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
Id., at 649. Ten years later, however, we decided Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
see Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
Constitution because it entrusts to a judge the finding of a fact raising the defendant's maximum penalty. See Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 466 (2000). The State, in response, noted that this Court had upheld Arizona's system in Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
caused by the manifest tension between Walton and the reasoning of Apprendi. See, e. g., United States v. PromiseSearch
-
Hoffman v. AraveSearch
-
People v. KaczmarekSearch
-
Ring therefore does not challenge Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedSearch
-
statutory maximum sentence. He makes no Sixth Amendment claim with respect to mitigating circumstances. See Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
Sixth Amendment required the jury to make the ultimate determination whether to impose the death penalty. See Proffitt v. FloridaSearch
-
this is not the first time we have considered the constitutionality of Arizona's capital sentencing system. In Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
Id., at 648 (quoting Hildwin v. FloridaSearch
-
between life and death. 497 U. S., at 648 (internal quotation marks omitted). Walton drew support from Cabana v. BullockSearch
-
bar to an appellate court's finding that a defendant killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, as Enmund v. FloridaSearch
-
authority to reweigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances after that court struck one aggravator. See Clemons v. MississippiSearch
-
s Right to Jury Trial, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 10-11 (1989)). 600 Walton was revisited in Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., at 239 (quoting United States ex rel. Attorney General v. DelawareSearch
-
U. S., at 272. One year after Jones, the Court decided Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
Id., at 477 (quoting United States v. GaudinSearch
-
U. S., at 497 (emphasis deleted) (quoting 603 Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedSearch
-
at 1151. Recognizing that the Arizona court's construction of the State's own law is authoritative, see Mullaney v. WilburSearch
-
Apprendi repeatedly in- 5 In Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
constraints we have said the Eighth Amendment places on capital sentencing. Brief for Respondent 21-25 (citing Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
see also Maynard v. CartwrightSearch
-
an element or elements to the definition of a criminal offense in order to narrow its scope. See, e. g., United States v. LopezSearch
-
Branden- 607 burg v. OhioSearch
-
Lam bert v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Patterson v. McLeanSearch
-
Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164 , 172 (1989) (quoting Welch v. TexasSearch
-
that any error was harmless because a pecuniary gain finding was implicit in the jury's guilty verdict. See Neder v. UnitedSearch
-
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, concurring. The question whether Walton v. ArizonaSearch
-
U. S. 639 (1990), survives our decision in Apprendi v. NewSearch
-
was the line of this Court's cases beginning with Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial