LAW 4051 Chapter Notes - Chapter 12: Antonin Scalia, Kaiaphas, Jury Trial
Document Summary
There are no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency (581: walton v. arizona (1990): sc held that arizona"s scheme was constitutional because additional facts found by the judge qualified as sentencing considerations, not as. Elements of the offense of capital murder: apprendi v. new jersey (2000): 6th amendment does not permit a defendant to be. Exposed to a penalty exceeding the maximum he would receive if punished according to the facts reflected in the jury verdict alone governs additional judicial findings. If a state makes an increase in a defendant"s authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact must be found by a jury (584) irreconcilable with walton, so sc overrules. Capital defendants, no less than non-capital defendants, we conclude, are entitled to a jury determination of any fact on which the legislature conditions an increase in their maximum punishment (580)
