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 9th 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 9th 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.