Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. Bracey
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided December 29, 2009No. 565 CAPPublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Chief Justice CASTILLE.
In this appeal, this Court is asked to consider the constitu*463tional necessity for a jury trial for purposes of an Atkins1 claim that is raised during collateral proceedings under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S. § 9541-9546. In Atkins, broadly speaking, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the execution of mentally retarded persons convicted of capital crimes violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Divining that there now appeared to be a consistent national consensus opposed to the execution of the mentally…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- 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
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Commonwealth v. Washington, T., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- Commonwealth v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Commonwealth v. SanchezSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
- Commonwealth v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
- Commonwealth v. PorterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.