About: Walton v. Arizona     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:WikicatOverruledUnitedStatesSupremeCourtDecisions, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FWalton_v._Arizona

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.

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • Walton v. Arizona
rdfs:comment
  • 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.
foaf:name
  • Jeffrey Alan Walton v. State of Arizona
dct:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
sameAs
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
ArgueDate
  • --01-17
JoinPlurality
  • Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy
Plurality
  • White
has abstract
  • 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.
ArgueYear
case
  • Walton v. Arizona,
cornell
DecideDate
  • --06-27
DecideYear
findlaw
Holding
  • Under the Sixth Amendment, a jury need not pass on the aggravated factors required to impose a death sentence under Arizona law. Under the Eighth Amendment, the words "especially heinous, cruel, or depraved" were not unconstitutionally vague because the Arizona Supreme Court had developed an adequately narrow interpretation of those words.
JoinMajority
  • Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
justia
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git97 as of Feb 07 2022


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3323 as of May 9 2022, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc25), Single-Server Edition (61 GB total memory, 43 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2022 OpenLink Software