The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Oral Argument: Monday, April 22, 2002
Decision: Monday, June 24, 2002
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Death Penalty

Advocates

Andrew D. Hurwitz (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Janet Napolitano (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

At Timothy Ring's trial for murder, the jury deadlocked on premeditated murder, but found Ring guilty of felony murder occurring in the course of armed robbery. Under Arizona law, Ring could not be sentenced to death, unless further findings were made by a judge conducting a separate sentencing hearing and only if the judge finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. Because the jury had convicted Ring of felony murder, not premeditated murder, Ring would be eligible for the death penalty only if he was the victim's actual killer. Citing accomplice testimony at the sentencing hearing, the judge found that Ring was the killer. The judge then found two aggravating factors, one of them being that the offense was committed for pecuniary gain, as well as one mitigating factor, Ring's minimal criminal record, and ruled that the latter did not call for leniency.

Question

Does Arizona's capital sentencing scheme violate the Sixth Amendment's jury trial guarantee by entrusting to a judge the finding of facts sufficient to impose the death penalty?

Conclusion

Yes. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that, because Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operates as "the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense," the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury. Under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, in which the Court held that the Sixth Amendment does not permit a defendant to be "exposed...to a penalty exceeding the maximum he would receive if punished according to the facts reflected in the jury verdict alone," the Court overruled Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, insofar it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty. "The right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment would be senselessly diminished if it encompassed the factfinding necessary to increase a defendant's sentence by two years, but not the factfinding necessary to put him to death," wrote Justice Ginsburg.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Full Opinion: 7 - 2
Voted with the majority, joined Ginsburg's opinion
Stevens
Voted with the majority, authored an opinion
Ginsburg
Voted with the majority, joined Ginsburg's opinion
Souter
Voted with the majority, authored a special concurrence
Breyer
Voted with the minority, authored a dissent
O'Connor
Voted with the majority, authored a concurrence
Kennedy
Voted with the minority, joined O'Connor's dissent
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority, authored a concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority, joined Scalia's concurrence
Thomas

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_488/>
(last visited ).