Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that 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.
On appeal in 2018, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the death sentence. [5] It was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court over disagreements on whether a judge or jury should resentence the defendant. [4] [6] As of April 2021, both McKinney and Hedlund are among 20 Arizona death row inmates who have exhausted all their appeals. [7]
Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court qualified the rule it set forth in Enmund v. Florida (1982). Just as in Enmund, in Tison the Court applied the proportionality principle to conclude that the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for a felony murderer who was a major participant in the underlying felony and exhibited a ...
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a requirement that a different Supreme Court decision requiring the jury rather than the judge to find aggravating factors would not be applied retroactively. [2]
The Arizona Supreme Court’s holding below—that Lynch v. Arizona , 578 U.S. 613, did not represent a “significant change in the law” for purposes of permitting Cruz to file a successive petition for state postconviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g)—is not an adequate state-law ground supporting that judgment.
Argument: Oral argument: Opinion announcement: Opinion announcement: Holding; The Arizona Supreme Court's holding that Lynch v.Arizona was not a significant change in the law is an exceptional case where a state-court judgment rests on such a novel and unforeseeable interpretation of a state-court procedural rule that the decision is not adequate to foreclose review of the federal claim.
In 1999, the Supreme Court declined to hear another appeal by Arizonans for Official English in a case in which the Arizona Supreme Court overturned Proposition 106. [ 3 ] In 2006, Arizona voters passed Proposition 103 with 74% of the vote, [ 11 ] [ 12 ] requiring "all official actions of the government be conducted in English" with exceptions ...
After law school Lopez clerked for Justice Charles Jones of the Arizona Supreme Court. [2] He then worked at the law firm Bryan Cave as a commercial litigator.. Lopez worked for the United States Attorney's Office for more than 12 years, serving as an Executive Assistant United States Attorney, Chief Assistant, the Chief of Public Crimes and Public Integrity Section as well as Deputy Appellate ...