In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court decid­ed in Ring v. Arizona that the Sixth Amendment’s guar­an­tee of a jury tri­al includ­ed the deter­mi­na­tion of whether suf­fi­cient aggra­vat­ing fac­tors exist­ed to make a defen­dant eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty. Now, five years lat­er, the man at the cen­ter of this case — Timothy Ring — has been re-sen­tenced to life with­out parole.

Ring’s case is among 27 Arizona death penal­ty cas­es affect­ed by the Supreme Court’s rul­ing and re-exam­i­nat­ed by the Arizona Supreme Court. The Court has upheld only 2 of the 27 death sen­tences it has reviewed. Four defen­dants, includ­ing Ring, were allowed to stip­u­late to life sen­tences. One per­son plead­ed guilty to a less­er charge and received a 25-year sen­tence. Ten cas­es were sent back to tri­al, result­ing in 5 death sen­tences and 5 life sen­tences. Another 10 cas­es are yet to be resolved.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s rul­ing in Ring direct­ly affect­ed death sen­tences in five states: Arizona, Nebraska, Colorado, Montana, and Idaho. After the rul­ing was issued, Arizona rewrote its death penal­ty statute so that defen­dants may choose juries to not only deter­mine aggra­vat­ing fac­tors but also to decide death sen­tences. Since then, juries have select­ed death sen­tences in 65% of the cap­i­tal cas­es before them. Prior to Ring, Arizona judges imposed death sen­tences in about 20% of cas­es. Ken Murray, an assis­tant fed­er­al pub­lic defend­er in Arizona, said that as attor­neys gain more expe­ri­ence with the new rules, they will bring back more life sentences.

(Associated Press, July 18, 2007). See DPIC’s Ring v. Arizona Web page and Life Without Parole.

Citation Guide