Tennard v. Dretke

Tennard v. Dretke
Tennard v. Dretke
	F.3d 476 (2003), cert. granted, 540 U.S. 945 (2003).
Holding
	A certificate of appealability should issue where "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong."
Court membership
	Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor; Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy; David Souter · Clarence Thomas; Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority	O'Connor, joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent	Rehnquist
Dissent	Scalia
Dissent	Thomas
Laws applied
	U.S. Const. amend. VIII

Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004), was a

penalty phase of his trial.^[1] The Supreme Court held that not considering a defendant's low IQ would breach his Eighth Amendment rights and constitute a cruel and unusual punishment.^[1]

Facts of the case

Robert Tennard was convicted of

prosecution

did not dispute. The prosecutors argued that Tennard's IQ was irrelevant to the case. The jury was instructed to evaluate two issues: did the defendant deliberately commit the crime, and was the defendant likely to be dangerous in the future?^[1] The jury answered yes to both questions and sentenced Tennard to death.^[1]

The defense then argued that the

penalty phase were inadequate, and Tennard's death penalty was in violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment.^[2]

Questions at issue

The

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this finding.^[1] The Supreme Court granted Tennard's writ of certiorari.^[1]

Issue

The U.S. Supreme Court then

remanded it back to the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the court's contemporaneous decision in Atkins v. Virginia

. The Fifth Circuit considered and rejected the Atkins claim. Tennard appealed again.

The main issue the U.S Supreme Court considered was whether the Fifth Circuit improperly denied Mr. Tennard's certificate of appeal since he had presented substantial evidence of a violation of his constitutional rights, or had "demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong?" (quotation in original).[2]

Outcome

The Supreme Court held that all relevant

death penalty case. It is not sufficient to allow the defendant to present mitigating factors during the trial if those factors are not considered in the sentencing. If the jury is not instructed to consider all relevant mitigating factors, the defendant's Eighth Amendment rights are violated as failure to do so constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.^[2] The court concluded that Tennard's IQ was a relevant mitigating factor, and that the sentencing jury should have been made to consider it for the purposes of mitigation.^[1]

Ultimately, Tennard's death sentence was reduced to life in prison.[3]

Significance

The case formed part of a series of decisions in which the Supreme Court adjusted and refined the capital sentencing methods of the various states.^[2]

Footnotes

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Spain, Sarah; Schmedlen, George W. (2005). "Sentencer Could Reasonably Find That Such Evidence Warrants a Sentence Less Than Death". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 33 (2). JAAPL.org: 265–267. Retrieved October 24, 2007.
^ http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/death_row/dr_offenders_no_longer_on_dr.html

External links

Text of Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
Smith v. Dretke, Tennard v. Dretke (Consolidated)
Robert James Tennard v. Douglas Dretke
Petitioner's brief
Respondent's brief

[supremecourt-1] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004).

[sentencer-2] Spain, Sarah; Schmedlen, George W. (2005). "Sentencer Could Reasonably Find That Such Evidence Warrants a Sentence Less Than Death". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. 33 (2). JAAPL.org: 265–267. Retrieved October 24, 2007.

[3] ttp://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/death_row/dr_offenders_no_longer_on_dr.html

[1]

[2]