Legal Opinion

Tennard v. Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided June 24, 2004No. 02-10038PublishedCited by 1,972 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice O’Connor

In Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 (1989) (Penry I), we held that the Texas capital sentencing scheme provided a constitutionally inadequate vehicle for jurors to consider and give effect to the mitigating evidence of mental retardation and childhood abuse the petitioner had presented. The petitioner in this case argues that the same scheme was inadequate for jurors to give effect to his evidence of low intelligence. The Texas courts rejected his claim, and a Federal District Court denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that “reasonable jurists would find the district…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Slack v. McDanielSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Miller-El v. CockrellSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  3. Wiggins v. Smith, WardenSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  4. Lockett v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Eddings v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1,972 opinions

  1. Roberts v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2007
  2. Ross v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Jenkins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2016
  4. Abdul-Kabir v. QuartermanSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  5. Zink v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2009

1,967 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API