ApprendiIn a case with potentially far-reaching implications for death penalty trials, the Supreme Court yesterday confronted the question of whether capital sentences, like lesser ones, must be based on factual findings by a jury rather than a judge.
At least some of the justices appeared inclined to say yes in the case of Ring v. Arizona, No. 01-488, argued yesterday. Lawyers for Arizona inmate Timothy Ring are seeking to apply to death sentences the rule of the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, which said that any facts that increase a criminal sentence must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
