Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, Sheriff, et al.

The court held that an appellate court—not a jury—must reweigh the mitigating and aggravating factors in a death-penalty habeas corpus case after an Eddings error is identified.

In a challenge to a state's method of execution under the Eighth Amendment, the Court held that a death-sentenced convict claiming excessive pain must show that alternative methods exist and would clearly cause less pain than the state's method.· AI-written

In a death penalty case involving intellectual disability, the Court held that contemporary clinical standards determine what counts as an intellectual disability, and that even milder forms may bar a death sentence under the Eighth Amendment.· AI-written

In a case on sentencing procedures in capital cases, the Court held that judges need not affirmatively instruct juries on the burden of proof for mitigating evidence, and that joint trials of capital defendants are often preferable.· AI-written

The Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Court held that a bright-line IQ threshold requirement for determining whether someone has an intellectual disability (formerly mental retardation) is unconstitutional in deciding whether they are eligible for the death penalty.

The Court held that mandatory sentences of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders.

The Court held that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibits the imposition of the death penalty for a crime in which the victim did not die and the victim's death was not intended.

The Court upheld the constitutionality of a particular method of lethal injection used for capital punishment.

The Court ruled that death-sentenced defendants may not be executed if they do not understand the reason for their imminent execution, and that once an execution date is set they may litigate their competency in habeas corpus proceedings.· AI-written

The Court held that a catch-all jury instruction allowing consideration of any circumstance extenuating the gravity of the crime permitted jurors to consider post-crime evidence and was consistent with the right to present mitigating evidence in death-penalty sentencing.· AI-written

The Court held that a Kansas death penalty statute was consistent with the United States Constitution.

The Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not grant criminal defendants facing the death penalty the right to introduce new evidence of their innocence during sentencing that was not introduced during trial.

The Court held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6–3 that executing people with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, but that states can define who has an intellectual disability.

The Court reversed the Texas courts in a case about whether sentencing instructions given to a Texas jury adequately emphasized mitigating factors for intellectually disabled defendants, finding the instructions insufficient.· AI-written

The court held that, in death-penalty cases, the constitution does not require juries to be informed of a lesser-included offense that may suit the facts without being death-eligible when the proposed alternative is not a lesser-included offense under state law.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that allowing the judge to impose a death sentence and making the jury recommendation non-binding even when it calls for life imprisonment is constitutional.

The Court held that, when a state uses a consistent narrowing definition for a broad term like "utter disregard," the broad term can function as a valid aggravating circumstance under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court held that testimony in the form of a victim impact statement is admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial and, in death penalty cases, does not violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

The Court held that the petitioner, Bryan Lankford, had been unconstitutionally sentenced to death in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court upheld two important aspects of the capital sentencing scheme in Arizona—judicial sentencing and the aggravating factor "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved"—as not unconstitutionally vague.

The Court sanctioned imposing the death penalty on offenders who were at least 16 years old at the time of their crimes.· AI-written

The Court upheld the death penalty for mentally disabled offenders because the Court determined executing the intellectually disabled was not "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment.

The Court held that testimony in the form of a victim impact statement is admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial only if it directly relates to the "circumstances of the crime."

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of a minor on grounds of "cruel and unusual punishment."

The Court held that the two jury polls and the supplemental charge did not unlawfully pressure the jury to give a death sentence.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that a mandatory death penalty for a prison inmate who is convicted of murder while serving a life sentence without possibility of parole is unconstitutional.

The death sentence of Warren McCleskey for armed robbery and murder was upheld.

The Court applied the proportionality principle and concluded that the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for a felony murderer who was a major participant in the underlying felony and showed reckless indifference to human life.· AI-written

The Court upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed, ruling that a petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and an evidentiary hearing in court on their competency to be executed.· AI-written

The Court held that the rule from Lockett v. Ohio (1978) dictated that mitigating evidence not be subject to limitations based on relevance.

The court held that a prosecutor in a capital case must never tell the jury that jurors are not deciding whether the defendant will die.

The Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not require a state appellate court, as an invariable rule, to proportionally compare a death sentence with penalties in similar cases before affirming it, even if the prisoner requests it.· AI-written

In a death penalty case where the defendant argued psychiatrists could not accurately predict future dangerousness, the Court ruled that such psychiatric predictions could be presented to a jury during the sentencing phase of a capital trial.· AI-written

The Court held that aggravating circumstances in the death penalty context must meaningfully narrow the number of people eligible for the death penalty.

The court ruled that the imposition of the death penalty under the felony murder rule when the defendant did not intentionally kill the victim constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States constitution.

The Court held that aggravating circumstances in the death penalty context must meaningfully narrow the number of people eligible for the death penalty.

The Court held that a jury must be allowed to consider lesser included offenses, not just capital offense or acquittal.

The Court held that a death sentence could not be granted for a murder when the only aggravating factor was that the murder was found to be "outrageously or wantonly vile."

The Court held that sentencing authorities must have the discretion to consider at least some mitigating factors, rather than being limited to a specific list of factors.

The Court held that the death penalty for rape of an adult was grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Court reaffirmed its acceptance of the death penalty, upholding the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg and setting out two main features capital sentencing procedures must have to comply with the Eighth Amendment.· AI-written

The Court reaffirmed its acceptance of the death penalty, upholding the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg and setting out two main features capital sentencing procedures must have to comply with the Eighth Amendment.· AI-written

The United States Supreme Court decided that arbitrary and inconsistent imposition of the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court ruled part of the Federal Kidnapping Act unconstitutional.