Citation network
Roper Vs. Simmons
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 01, 2005
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2004 Roper V. SimmonsSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center V. SimmonsSearch
-
and subsequent petitions for state and federal postconviction relief were rejected. This Court then held, in Atkins v. VirginiaSearch
-
death sentence in favor of life imprisonment without eligibility for release. It held that, although Stanford v. KentuckySearch
-
In 1988, in Thompson v. OklahomaSearch
-
That same day the Court held, in Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
Thompson v. OklahomaSearch
-
opinion. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Roper v. SimmonsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Opinion of the Court Roper V. SimmonsSearch
-
Court of the United States No. 03-633 Donald P. Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, Petitioner V. ChristopherSearch
-
execute a juvenile offender who was older than 15 but younger than 18 when he committed a capital crime. In Stanford v. KentuckySearch
-
conviction and sentence, and from the denial of postconviction relief, the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed. State v. SimmonsSearch
-
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Simmons v. BowersoxSearch
-
this Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the execution of a mentally retarded person. Atkins v. VirginiaSearch
-
who was under 18 when the crime was committed. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed. State ex rel. Simmons v. RoperSearch
-
The provision is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Robinson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
U. S., at 311 (quoting Weems v. UnitedSearch
-
to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual. Trop v. DullesSearch
-
plurality opinion). In Thompson v. OklahomaSearch
-
set aside the death sentence that had been imposed on the 15-year-old offender. The next year, in Stanford v. KentuckySearch
-
the Eighth Amendment did not mandate a categorical exemption from the death penalty for the mentally retarded. Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
U. S. , at 312 (quoting Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
Id., at 321 (quoting Ford v. WainwrightSearch
-
Okla- homa, Texas, and Virginia. See V. StreibSearch
-
the last 10 years even by the execution of the very defendant whose death sentence the Court had upheld in Stanford v. KentuckySearch
-
State v. FurmanSearch
-
must give narrow and precise definition to the aggravating factors that can result in a capital sentence. Godfrey v. GeorgiaSearch
-
see also Johnson v. TexasSearch
-
s jurisprudence after Furman v. GeorgiaSearch
-
beyond question are severe in absolute terms, yet the death penalty may not be imposed for their commission. Coker v. GeorgiaSearch
-
such as juveniles under 16, the insane, and the mentally retarded, no matter how heinous the crime. Thompson v. OklahomaSearch
-
Atkins , 536 U. S., at 319 (quoting Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
In general we leave to legislatures the assessment of the efficacy of various criminal penalty schemes, see Harmelin v. MichiganSearch
-
we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest. These considerations mean Stanford v. KentuckySearch
-
a)(1) (Lexis 1996) Washington Minimum age of 18 established by judicial decision. State v. FurmanSearch
-
death penalty statutes. State v. MarshSearch
-
People v. LaValleSearch
-
Lexis 2003) Roper v. SimmonsSearch
-
it was originally drafted, it would impose no impediment to the execution of 7-year-old children today. See Stanford v. KentuckySearch
-
s opinion for the Court. In all events, I do so without hesitation. Roper v. SimmonsSearch
-
O'Connor, J., Dissenting Roper V. SimmonsSearch
-
Atkins v. VirginiaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial