Lockett v. Ohio
E299484
Eighth Amendment case
United States Supreme Court case
capital punishment case
constitutional law case
criminal law case
Lockett v. Ohio is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded the range of mitigating factors a sentencer must be allowed to consider before imposing the death penalty.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Lockett v. Ohio canonical | 2 |
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Eighth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ capital punishment case ⓘ constitutional law case ⓘ criminal law case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
criminal procedure
ⓘ
death penalty jurisprudence ⓘ |
| arguedDate |
1978-03-28
ⓘ
1978-03-29 ⓘ |
| citation | 438 U.S. 586 ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Byron R. White
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Byron R. White
Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Harry A. Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Potter Stewart ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Potter Stewart
Thurgood Marshall ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Thurgood Marshall
William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William J. Brennan Jr.
|
| concurrenceInJudgmentBy |
John Paul Stevens
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice John Paul Stevens
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
surface form:
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1978-07-03 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
William H. Rehnquist
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice William H. Rehnquist
|
| docketNumber | 76-6997 ⓘ |
| fullName | Lockett v. Ohio self-link ⓘ |
| holding |
Ohio’s death penalty statute was unconstitutional because it narrowly limited the mitigating factors the sentencer could consider.
ⓘ
The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer in a capital case not be precluded from considering any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any circumstances of the offense as mitigating factors. ⓘ |
| impact | significantly expanded the range of mitigating factors that must be admissible in capital sentencing ⓘ |
| joinedPlurality |
Harry A. Blackmun
ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Harry A. Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Potter Stewart ⓘ
surface form:
Justice Potter Stewart
|
| jurisdiction | Ohio ⓘ |
| legalIssue | scope of mitigating evidence in capital sentencing ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Warren E. Burger
ⓘ
surface form:
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
|
| page | 586 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Sandra Lockett ⓘ |
| pluralityOpinionBy |
Warren E. Burger
ⓘ
surface form:
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
|
| precedentFor | requirement that capital sentencers may consider any relevant mitigating evidence ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Eddings v. Oklahoma
ⓘ
Furman v. Georgia ⓘ Gregg v. Georgia ⓘ Woodson v. North Carolina ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent |
Ohio
ⓘ
surface form:
State of Ohio
|
| result | death sentence vacated ⓘ |
| stateLawAtIssue | Ohio capital punishment statute ⓘ |
| subsequentHistory | remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion ⓘ |
| volume | 438 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1978 ⓘ |
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.