Tennard v. Dretke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Tennard v. Dretke | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||
| Argued March 22, 2004 Decided June 24, 2004 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||||
| A certificate of appealability should issue where "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." | ||||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||||
| Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer |
||||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||||
| Majority by: O'Connor Joined by: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer Dissent by: Rehnquist Dissent by: Scalia Dissent by: Thomas |
||||||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. VIII | ||||||||||||
Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court was asked whether evidence of the defendant's low IQ in a death penalty trial had been adequately presented to the jury for full consideration in the penalty phase of his trial. The Supreme Court held that not considering a defendant's mental retardation would breach his Eighth Amendment rights and constitute a cruel and unusual punishment.[1]
Contents |
[edit] Facts of the case
Robert Tennard was convicted of capital murder by a Texas jury. Tennard and two accomplices robbed and killed two neighbors. The evidence presented at trial indicated that Tennard killed one of the victims by stabbing while his accomplice used a hatchet to kill the other victim.[2] In the evidence phase of the trial, the defense presented evidence that Tennard's IQ was 67, a fact which the prosecution did not dispute. The prosecutors argued that Tennard's IQ was irrelevant to the case. The jury was instructed to evaluate two issues: did the defendant deliberately commit the crime, and was the defendant likely to be dangerous in the future?[1] The jury answered yes to both questions and sentenced Tennard to the death penalty.[3]
The defense then argued that the jury instructions in the penalty phase were inadequate, and Tennard's death penalty was in violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment.[2]
[edit] Questions at issue
The District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Tennard a certificate to appeal on the basis that a low IQ is not a sufficient reason for appeal there was no evidence presented that Tennard's behavior was mentally retarded and that mental retardation was related to the criminal act. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this finding.[3] The Supreme Court granted Tennard's writ of certiorari.[3]
[edit] Issue
The U.S. Supreme Court then vacated the decision and remanded it back to the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the court's contemporaneous decision in Atkins v. Virginia. The Fifth Circuit considered and rejected the Atkins claim. Tennard appealed again.
The main issue the U.S Supreme Court considered was whether the Fifth Circuit improperly denied Mr. Tennard's certificate of appeal since he had presented substantial evidence of a violation of his constitutional rights, or had "demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong?" (quotation in original).[2]
[edit] Outcome
The Supreme Court held that all relevant mitigating factors must be considered in the penalty phase of a death penalty case. It is not sufficient to allow the defendant to present mitigating factors during the trial if those factors are not considered in the sentencing. If the jury is not instructed to consider all relevant mitigating factors, the defendant's Eighth Amendment rights are violated as failure to do so constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.[2] The court concluded that Tennard's IQ was a relevant mitigating factor, and that the sentencing jury should have been made to consider it for the purposes of mitigation.[4]
[edit] Significance
The case formed part of a series of decisions in which the Supreme Court adjusted and refined the capital sentencing methods of the various states.[2]
[edit] See also
[edit] Footnotes
- ^ a b Tennard v. Dretke. FindLaw.com. Retrieved on 2007-10-27.
- ^ a b c d e Sentencer Could Reasonably Find That Such Evidence Warrants a Sentence Less Than Death. JAAPL.org (2005). Retrieved on 2007-10-24.
- ^ a b c Tennard v. Dretke Certioari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Law.Cornell.edu (2004). Retrieved on 2007-10-24.
- ^ Robert James Tennard, Petitioner v. Dour Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Find Law.com. Retrieved on 2007-10-25.
