Legal Opinion · Concurrence
Murphy v. State
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
Decided September 4, 2002No. PCD-2001-1197Published
1ConcurrenceChapel, J.
T1 I agree that Murphy's case must be remanded for a hearing on the issue of mental retardation. I have serious reservations about the majority's analysis of this and another claim, and disagree with the proposed procedures to be used in deciding this and future mental retardation claims.
12 I disagree with the way in which the majority resolves issues raised by Atkins v. Virgimia.1 Atkins found executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutional. This is a fiat prohibition. Under Atkins, a mentally retarded person is not eligible for the death penalty. The Court's sense of urgency in…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Ring v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Atkins v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Penry v. LynaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Cooper v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.