Ring v. Arizona
| Ring v. Arizona | |
|---|---|
| Argued April 22, 2002 Decided June 24, 2002 | |
| Full case name | Timothy Stuart Ring v. Arizona |
| Citations | 536 U.S. 584 (more) 122 S. Ct. 2428; 153 L. Ed. 2d 556; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4651; 70 U.S.L.W. 4666; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5594; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 7047; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 464 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On writ of cert. to the Sup. Court of Arizona. State v. Ring, 200 Ariz. 267 |
| Holding | |
| A sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, cannot find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty. Because Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operate as "the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense," the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury. 597-609. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas |
| Concurrence | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
| Concurrence | Kennedy |
| Concurrence | Breyer (in judgment) |
| Dissent | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. VI | |
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings | |
| Walton v. Arizona (1990) | |
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey to capital sentencing schemes, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. Ring overruled a portion of Walton v. Arizona, which had rejected that contention.
The case was argued by then-Attorney General Janet Napolitano and future judge Andrew Hurwitz.