Go to:	Briefs Menu	Cases Pending	Cases Decided

RING v. ARIZONA

United States Supreme Court No. 01-488

---

QUESTION PRESENTED: Should Walton v. Arizona and Hildwin v. Florida, which held that the Sixth Amendment does not required that eligibility factors in post-Furman capital sentencing systems be found by a jury, be overruled?

ORAL ARGUMENT DATE: April 22, 2002

---

INTRODUCTION

Interest of amicus curiae
Summary of facts and case
Summary of argument

Argument - Parts I - III

I. Eligibility for benefit of clergy was the common law's closest analogue to "eligibility factors," and it was not an element of the offense

II. Defendant's purely functional definition of elements cannot be squared with Mullaney, Patterson, and Edwards

A. Rejection of the purely functional definition
B. An ameliorative innovation

III. Drawing the line between aggravating and mitigating facts would have the reform-inhibiting effect foreseen in Patterson

Part IV

IV. To overturn a quarter century of consistent precedent despite massive reliance would be a monumental betrayal of public confidence in this Court

A. The precedents
B. Reliance
C. Public confidence
1. Frequent overruling
2. Intensely divisive controversy

Conclusion