Lockett v. Ohio
- Decided
- July 3, 1978
- Docket
- 76-6997
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,026 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that capital defendants must be allowed to present all mitigating evidence, while acknowledging legislation may limit evidence in a noncapital case — State v. Benn (1993)
- holding that a sentencer “must not be precluded from considering ... any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers” — Donald Beardslee v. Jeanne S. Woodford, Warden, of the California State Prison at San Quentin (2004)
- holding that defendant's relatively minor participation in the crime is a mitigating factor that sentencer must consider — Howard v. Moore (1997)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*589] Mr. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to the constitutionality of petitioner’s conviction (Parts I and II), together with an opinion (Part III), in which Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Powell, and Mr. Justice Stevens joined, on the constitutionality of the statute under which petitioner was sentenced to death, and announced the judgment of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to consider, among other questions, whether Ohio violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by sentencing Sandra Lockett to death pursuant to a statute[1] that narrowly limits the sentencer’s discretion to consider the circumstances of the crime and the record and character of the offender as mitigating factors.
I
Cite this
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.