Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Tennard v. Dretke

Docket No.: 02-10038
Argued: March 22, 2004
Decided: June 24, 2004
Consolidated with: Robert Smith v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, No. 02-11309

Topics:

28 USC 2241-2255 (habeas corpus), Criminal Procedure, Habeas Corpus, ADA, EPA, Eighth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Miranda, capital murder, habeas, habeas corpus, harmless error, ineffective assistance of counsel, murder, privacy, probable cause, search and seizure, self-incrimination, stare decisis

PartyNames: Robert James Tennard v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Petitioner: Robert James Tennard
Respondent: Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Citation: CA 5, 317 F.3d 476. OUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Is the Fifth Circuit's rule requiring a "nexus" to the crime before evidenceof impaired intellectual functioning and judgment can be considered as mitigation for purposes of determining whether there is a violation of Penryv. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302 (1989) (Penry 1), inconsistent with the rationale of Atkins v. Virginia, 122 S.Ct. 2242 (2002)? 2. Did the Fifth Circuit err in resolving the plainly substantial question of theeffect of Atkins on the Fifth Circuit nexus rule by denying a COA, rather than granting a COA and giving the substantive issue the merits consideration it deserves?
Supreme Court Docket

Robert James Tennard
v.
Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
542 U.S. 274 (2004)
Question:

Does the Supreme Court's prohibition of executing mentally retarded people in Atkins v. Virginia apply if the crime cannot be attributed to mental retardation?

Note:

. CA 5, 317 F.3d 476. OUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Is the Fifth Circuit's rule requiring a "nexus" to the crime before evidenceof impaired intellectual functioning and judgment can be considered as mitigation for purposes of determining whether there is a violation of Penryv. Lynaugh , 492 U.S. 302 (1989) (Penry 1), inconsistent with the rationale of Atkins v. Virginia, 122 S.Ct. 2242 (2002)? 2. Did the Fifth Circuit err in resolving the plainly substantial question of theeffect of Atkins on the Fifth Circuit nexus rule by denying a COA, rather than granting a COA and giving the substantive issue the merits consideration it deserves? CERT. GRANTED: 10/14/03Consolidated with 02-11309 for a total of one hour oral argument.

Tennard v. Dretke
ORAL ARGUMENT

March 22, 2004

Holding: reversed and remanded
Decision: Decision: 6 votes for Tennard, 3 vote(s) against
Vote: 5-4
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)