Lockhart v. Fretwell

Last updated
Lockhart v. Fretwell
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued November 3, 1992
Decided January 25, 1993
Full case nameLockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections v. Fretwell
Citations506 U.S. 364 ( more )
113 S. Ct. 838; 122 L. Ed. 2d 180
Case history
PriorFretwell v. Lockhart, 739 F. Supp. 1334 (E.D. Ark. 1990); affirmed in part, 946 F.2d 571 (8th Cir. 1991); cert. granted, 504 U.S. 908(1992).
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White  · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas
ConcurrenceO'Connor
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentStevens, joined by Blackmun

Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court [1] which held that failure to make an objection under Collins v. Lockhart [2] did not constitute undue prejudice required by Strickland v. Washington , [3] because the error did not cause a fundamentally unfair trial, as opposed to merely a different outcome of the case.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.

Contents

Facts

An Arkansas Jury convicted Fretwell of Capital Murder, and sentenced him to the death penalty. [1] [4] In April 1985, Fretwell entered the home of the victim, stole the victim's money, and shot the victim in the head. Subsequently, the jury was asked in the penalty phase to determine two aggravating circumstances. The first of these was whether or not Fretwell committed the homicide for the purpose of avoiding or preventing arrest. The second was whether or not Fretwell committed the homicide for pecuniary gain. The jury subsequently found only the second aggravating factor, and found no mitigating factors. Fretwell's attorney failed to object to the submission of the second of these aggravating factors to the jury, despite the ruling of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Collins v. Lockhart, which held that whether or not a defendant commits a homicide for pecuniary gain was unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States in the setting of homicide committed in the context of a robbery. [4]

Related Research Articles

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Utah.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Oregon.

Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), reaffirmed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon Gregg. Referred to by a leading scholar as the July 2 Cases and elsewhere referred to by the lead case Gregg, the Supreme Court set forth the two main features that capital sentencing procedures must employ in order to comply with the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The decision essentially ended the de facto moratorium on the death penalty imposed by the Court in its 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

Capital murder was a statutory offence of aggravated murder in Great Britain, and Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, which was later adopted as a legal provision to define certain forms of aggravated murder in the United States. In some parts of the U.S., this term can define certain acts of aggravated murder: a capital murder is any murder that makes the perpetrator eligible for the death penalty.

Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, to capital sentencing schemes, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. Ring overruled a portion of Walton v. Arizona, that had previously rejected this contention.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Virginia.

Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), held that the death penalty for rape of an adult woman was grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A few states continued to have child rape statutes that authorized the death penalty. In Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), the court expanded Coker, ruling that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all cases that do not involve murder or crimes against the State.

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. The Court overruled the first of these holdings in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). The second of these holdings has yet to be overturned.

In criminal law, a mitigating factor, also known as extenuating circumstances, is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence. Unlike a legal defense, it cannot lead to the acquittal of the defendant. The opposite of a mitigating factor is an aggravating factor.

<i>Bigby v. Dretke</i>

Bigby v. Dretke 402 F.3d 551, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard a case appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on the issue of the instructions given to a jury in death penalty sentencing. The decision took into account the recent United States Supreme Court decisions concerning the relevance of mitigating evidence in sentencing, as in Penry v. Lynaugh.

Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court was asked whether evidence of the defendant's low IQ in a death penalty trial had been adequately presented to the jury for full consideration in the penalty phase of his trial. 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.

Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case in which 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.

Capital punishment in Florida

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Florida.

2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

The United States Constitution contains several provisions related to criminal sentencing.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of North Carolina.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Arizona.

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Montana.

Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8-1 ruling, applied the rule of Ring v. Arizona to the Florida capital sentencing scheme, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. In Florida, under a 2013 statute, the jury made recommendations but the judge decided the facts.

References

  1. 1 2 Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993).
  2. ↑ Collins v. Lockhart, 754F.2d258 ( 8th Cir. 1985).
  3. ↑ Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
  4. 1 2 "Lockhart v. Fretwell - Case Brief". Lockhart v. Fretwell - Case Brief.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.