The Supreme Court said Monday that death row inmates do not automatically have a right to a jury trial to determine whether they are mentally retarded and therefore ineligible for execution. Three years ago, the Court's Atkins decision left it up to states to determine whether inmates are retarded. Monday the justices reiterated that states have discretion to set up their own systems. The decision leaves open the chance for a future challenge, claiming that a system as applied is unconstitutional.
October 18, 2005 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
The Supreme Court said Monday that death row inmates do not automatically have a right to a jury trial to determine whether they are mentally retarded and therefore ineligible for execution.
Three years ago the Court barred executions of the mentally retarded, on grounds that they violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Justices left it up to states to determine whether inmates are retarded.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
