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

 

Schriro v. Summerlin

Docket No.: 03-526
Argued: April 19, 2004
Decided: June 24, 2004

Topics:

Criminal Procedure, Administrative Procedure, Article I, Bill of Rights, Comity, Death Penalty, Due Process, EPA, Eighth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, capital murder, criminal procedure, habeas, habeas corpus, murder

PartyNames: Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections v. Warren Wesley Summerlin
Petitioner: Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections
Respondent: Warren Wesley Summerlin

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: CA 9, 341 F.3d 1082 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW:
Supreme Court Docket

Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections
v.
Warren Wesley Summerlin
542 U.S. 348 (2004)
Background:

FOR REVIEW: In Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 (2002), this Court held that theSixth Amendment jury trial guarantee extends to the determination of any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the maximum punishmentfor first-degree murder from life imprisonment to death. In the instant case, the United States Court of Appeals fo r the Ninth Circuit held that the rule announced in Ring should be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review.

Consideration Limited:

Limited to questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition.

Question Presented:

1. Did the Ninth Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring is substantive, rather than procedural, and therefore exempt from theretroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) (plurality)? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring applies retroactively to cases on collateral review under Teague's exception for watershed rules of criminal procedure that alter bedrock procedural principles and seriously enhance the accuracy of the proceedings? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit err by applying Ring notwithstanding a "prior conviction" aggravating circumstance that, under Almendarez-Torres v.United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), need not be found by the jury? CERT. GRANTED: 12/1/03 Limited to questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition.

Question:

Was the change announced by the Supreme Court in Ring v. Arizona substantive in nature and therefore retroactively applicable?

Note:

. CA 9, 341 F.3d 1082

Schriro v. Summerlin
ORAL ARGUMENT

April 19, 2004

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