Maynard v. Cartwright
| Maynard v. Howell | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Holding | |
| Oklahoma's statutory characterization of aggravating circumstances as "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" is unconstitutionally vague under the Eighth Amendment; the proper analysis focuses on whether the challenged aggravating circumstance adequately informs the jury as to what it must find in order to impose the death penalty, or whether it leaves the jury with unchanneled discretion to make an arbitrary and capricious decision. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by unanimous |
| Concurrence | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. VIII | |
Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988), is a
death penalty as defined by the Eighth Amendment was too vague.[1] As such, Oklahoma's law was overturned based on Furman v. Georgia
(1972).
Justice Brennan announced in a concurrence, joined by Justice Marshall, that he would adhere to his view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.[2]
See also
- Capital punishment
- Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Walton v. Arizona (1990)
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 486
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
References
External links
- Text of Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |