Facebook Twitter Email
TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2002

The Supreme Court on Monday heard oral arguments in a case affecting the use of the death penalty.

An Arizona man contends capital punishment sentencing by a judge is unconstitutional. His attorney told the Justices that the Sixth Amendment requires a trial by peers when "aggravating factors" are taken into account.

This rule is often called Apprendi, named for a prior Supreme Court case. In that instance, the Court rejected a judge's imposition of a stricter prison sentence for a hate crime.

Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano said rights of the accused are protected because juries must first come to a guilty plea before a judge imposes capital punishment.

Get the Story:
High Court Reviews Death Sentence Issues (The Washington Post 4/23)
Justices Review Judges' Role in Deciding Death Penalty (The New York Times 4/23)
Username: indianz.com, Password: indianz.com

Related Documents:
Docket Sheet: Ring v. Arizona (No. 01-488)

Related Stories:
Panel urges death penalty changes (4/16)
Death penalty sentence thrown out (12/19)
Report: More Indians on state death row (12/12)
N.M. executes first in 41 years (11/7)
N.M. judge rejects execution appeal (11/2)
The Death Penalty: Race may matter (9/27)
Supreme Court to consider execution (9/26)
Executions down nationwide (9/6)
Supreme Court urged to keep execution case (8/22)
Texas halts execution at last minute (8/16)
Supreme Court won't stop execution (8/14)
Justice Thomas wanted off death penalty case (8/13)
State wants death penalty case dismissed (8/8)
Supreme Court halts execution (6/22)
Ashcroft left out death penalty facts (6/19)
Texas Gov. vetoes death penalty bill (6/18)
DOJ to study racial bias in death penalty (6/14)
Ashcroft denies racial bias in executions (6/7)
Supreme Court overturns execution (6/5)
Group seeks moratorium on executions (6/4)
Supreme Court halts execution (4/17)
Supremes to take on execution case (3/27)