Penry v. Johnson
2001 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Penry v. Johnson?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case which concerned whether instructions given to a Texas jury were constitutionally adequate to emphasize the mitigating factors in sentencing of defendants who are intellectually disabled ("retarded" in the Court's words.)[1] The Texas courts had determined the sentencing instructions were consistent with prior Supreme Court jurisprudence, but the Court in a divided decision reversed, finding the sentencing instructions insufficient. This was the second time Penry's case made it to the Supreme Court.
Quick Facts Penry v. Johnson, Argued March 27, 2001 Decided June 4, 2001 ...
Penry v. Johnson | |
---|---|
Argued March 27, 2001 Decided June 4, 2001 | |
Full case name | Johnny Paul Penry, Petitioner v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division |
Citations | 532 U.S. 782 (more) 121 S. Ct. 1910; 150 L. Ed. 2d 9; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 4309; 69 U.S.L.W. 4402; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4516; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 5539; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2744; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 316 |
Case history | |
Prior | On remand after Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989); sentenced to death on retrial, sentence affirmed Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. Crim. App., 1995); appeal denied, 215 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 2000); cert. granted, 531 U.S. 1010 (2000). |
Subsequent | Penry v. State, 178 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App., 2005) |
Holding | |
A Texas trial court's supplemental instruction on mitigating evidence of mental retardation for sentencing was not constitutionally adequate. Further, the admission into evidence of statements from a psychiatric report based on an uncounseled interview with the defendant does not violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | O'Connor, joined by unanimous (parts I, II, III-A); Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (part III-B) |
Concur/dissent | Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. V, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 |
Close