Ring v. Arizona
- Decided
- June 24, 2002
- Docket
- 01-488
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,683 timesOverruled (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled (not yet verified) · Baker v. State
What later courts said
- holding that Sixth Amendment requires that a jury, not a judge, find the existence of any aggravating circumstance, and that they be found beyond a reasonable doubt — Hogan v. State (2006)
- holding that provisions of Arizona’s sentencing scheme that allowed a judge to find those aggravating factors authorizing the death penalty violate the Sixth Amendment — Jackie Humphress v. United States (2005)
- holding that “a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, [may not] find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty” — George Everette Sibley, Jr. v. Grantt Culliver (2004)
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
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in capital prosecutions. In Arizona, following a jury adjudication of a defendant’s guilt of first-degree murder, the trial judge, sitting alone, determines the presence or absence of the aggravating factors required by Arizona law for imposition of the death penalty.
In Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639 (1990), this Court held that Arizona’s sentencing scheme was compatible with the Sixth Amendment because the additional facts found by the judge qualified as sentencing considerations, not as “element[s] of the offense of capital murder.” Id., at 649. Ten years later, however, we decided Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), which held that the Sixth Amendment does not permit a defendant to be “expose[d]... to a penalty [*589] exceeding the maximum he would receive if punished according to the facts reflected in the jury verdict alone.” Id., at 483. This prescription governs, Apprendi determined, even if the State characterizes the additional findings made by the judge as “sentencing factor[s].” Id., at 492.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)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.