Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Schriro Vs. Summerlin

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 24, 2004

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

77 entries 6 linked 71 unlinked
Show
  1. Teague Vs. Lane US Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1989
  2. Tyler Vs. Cain US Supreme Court · Jun 28, 2001
  3. Dobbert Vs. Florida US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1977
  4. Johnson Vs. Fankell US Supreme Court · Jun 09, 1997
  5. Saffle Vs. Parks US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1990
  6. Destefano Vs. Woods US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1968
  7. Syllabus October Term, 2003 Schriro V. Summerlin
    Search
  8. Supreme Court of the United States Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections V. Summerlin
    Search
  9. s subsequent federal habeas case was pending in the Ninth Circuit, this Court decided that Apprendi v. New
    Search
  10. s scheme. Ring v. Arizona
    Search
  11. are given retroactive effect. Saffle v. Parks
    Search
  12. joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Schriro v. Summerlin
    Search
  13. Opinion of the Court Schriro V. Summerlin
    Search
  14. Of the United States No. 03-526 Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Depart- Ment of Corrections, Petitioner V. Warren
    Search
  15. Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case, we decide whether Ring v. Arizona
    Search
  16. mitigating factors, the judge imposed the death sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed on direct review. State v. Summerlin
    Search
  17. s case was pending in the Ninth Circuit, we decided Apprendi v. New
    Search
  18. Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), and Ring v. Arizona
    Search
  19. We specifically overruled our earlier decision in Walton v. Arizona
    Search
  20. s death sentence. Summerlin v. Stewart
    Search
  21. that rule applies to all criminal cases still pending on direct review. Griffith v. Kentucky
    Search
  22. This includes decisions that narrow the scope of a criminal statute by interpreting its terms, see Bousley v. United
    Search
  23. s power to punish, see Saffle v. Parks
    Search
  24. or faces a punishment that the law cannot impose upon him. Bousley , supra , at 620 (quoting Davis v. United
    Search
  25. U. S. 656 , 667, n. 7 (2001) (quoting Sawyer v. Smith
    Search
  26. this fashion are prototypical procedural rules, a conclusion we have reached in numerous other contexts. See Gasperini v. Center
    Search
  27. Landgraf v. USI
    Search
  28. see also Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  29. s previous conclusion to the contrary. See State v. Towery
    Search
  30. they certainly thought juries were more independent, see Blakely v. Washington
    Search
  31. quoting Desist v. United
    Search
  32. greater experience. See Proffitt v. Florida
    Search
  33. cannot confidently say that judicial factfinding seriously diminishes accuracy. Our decision in DeStefano v. Woods
    Search
  34. U. S. 631 (1968) (per curiam) , is on point. There we refused to give retroactive effect to Duncan v. Louisiana
    Search
  35. Because Arizona law already required aggravating factors to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, see State v. Jordan
    Search
  36. and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 1214, the provisions of that Act do not apply. See Lindh v. Murphy
    Search
  37. Apprendi violation because the prior-conviction aggravator, exempt from Apprendi under Almendarez-Torres v. United
    Search
  38. s bar on retroactive application of procedural rules, see, e.g. , Horn v. Banks
    Search
  39. Respondent also argues that Ring was substantive because our understanding of Arizona law changed. Compare Ring v. Arizona
    Search
  40. with Apprendi v. New
    Search
  41. Even if our understanding of state law changed, however, the actual content of state law did not. See State v. Ring
    Search
  42. State v. Gretzler
    Search
  43. did not favor retroactivity. Schriro v. Summerlin
    Search
  44. Breyer, J., Dissenting Schriro V. Summerlin
    Search
  45. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting. In Ring v. Arizona
    Search
  46. i.e ., a sentence that was already final on direct review when Ring was decided . Teague v. Lane
    Search
  47. that death is a legally appropriate punishment . Id. , at 313 (emphasis added). See Sawyer v. Smith
    Search
  48. Dell v. Netherland
    Search
  49. Cf. Apprendi v. New
    Search
  50. Apprendi v. New
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial