Walton v. Arizona

http://dbpedia.org/resource/Walton_v._Arizona an entity of type: Thing

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. rdf:langString
rdf:langString Walton v. Arizona
rdf:langString
rdf:langString Jeffrey Alan Walton v. State of Arizona
xsd:integer 6492154
xsd:integer 1098922172
rdf:langString Ring v. Arizona,
rdf:langString Stevens
rdf:langString Brennan
rdf:langString Blackmun
rdf:langString Marshall
rdf:langString Brennan, Marshall, Stevens
rdf:langString Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
<second> 172800.0
rdf:langString Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in an Arizona superior court and sentenced to death. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence; cert. granted to U.S. Supreme Court.
xsd:integer 639
xsd:integer 497
xsd:gMonthDay --01-17
xsd:integer 1990
rdf:langString Walton v. Arizona,
xsd:gMonthDay --06-27
xsd:integer 1990
rdf:langString Jeffrey Alan Walton v. State of Arizona
rdf:langString 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.
rdf:langString Walton v. Arizona
rdf:langString White
rdf:langString 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.
rdf:langString Scalia
rdf:langString Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy
rdf:langString White
xsd:nonNegativeInteger 14184

data from the linked data cloud