LEGAL UPDATES: Mental Retardation, Representation, Lethal Injections

Various courts issued rul­ings this week regard­ing issues impor­tant to cap­i­tal punishment law:

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned opin­ion hold­ing that it was improp­er for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to require Arizona to have a jury deter­mine a defen­dan­t’s men­tal retar­da­tion sta­tus. The Court not­ed that Arizona’s leg­is­la­ture had not yet addressed whether this issue should be decid­ed by a judge or a jury. The case is Schriro v. Smith, No. 04 – 1475 (October 17, 2005). (See Washington Post, Oct. 18, 2005). See Mental Retardation.

In anoth­er Arizona case, the 9^th Circuit held that Warren Summerlin had received inef­fec­tive coun­sel at the penal­ty phase of his death penal­ty tri­al. In an ear­li­er deci­sion, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that Summerlin could not take advan­tage of its rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona (hold­ing that defen­dants have a right to a jury deter­mi­na­tion of the facts that would make them eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty) because Ring was not retroac­tive. The 9^th Circuit’s deci­sion is Summerlin v. Schriro, No. 98 – 99002 (Oct. 17, 2005). Summerlin will now have to be re-sen­tenced. See DPIC’s Ring v. Arizona page.

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the state’s lethal injec­tion process does not amount to cru­el and unusal pun­ish­ment. See Abu-Ali Abdur’Rahman v. Bredesen et al. (Oct. 17, 2005); (The Chattanoogan, Oct. 17, 2005). See Methods of Execuction; see also DPIC’s page on the case of Abdur’Rahman.