Atkins v. Virginia (2002) Chandler Vaughan

Case Outline Supreme Court Title: Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) Plaintiff: The Commonwealth of Virginia Defendant: Daryl Atkins

The Original Case August 16, 1996 Daryl Atkins, and an accomplice, abducted Eric Nesbitt, stealing his wallet The men then forced Nesbit to withdrawal money from his ATM Not satisfied, Atkins took Nesbitt to a remote location and shot him 8 times.

Original Jurisdiction Circuit Court of York County The Commonwealth of Virginia provided evidence, supporting the murder and conviction Daryl Atkins, and his attorneys, defended on the belief that Atkins is mentally retarded and cannot be accountable for his actions. The jury convicted Atkins of capital murder Atkins was sentenced to death

Appeals Court Atkins was successful in his appeal process, petitioning to the Supreme Court of Virginia that he can not be executed because he is mentally retarded. Atkins believed that his execution would defy his 8 th Amendment right that protects him against “cruel and unusual punishment” The Supreme Court of Virginia, in their ruling, cited Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the execution of a mentally retarded defendant.

Supreme Court Appealing to the Supreme Court The case had developed into a national conversation The case had to be Constitutionally relevant The court decided to hear the case to answer the question: Is the execution of mentally retarded persons cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?

Supreme Court Case Dates: February 20, 2002 to June 20, 2002 The court heard both arguments to determine the Constitutionality of executing mentally handicapped persons. The final vote was 6-3, stating that the mentally retarded can not be executed. Daryl Atkins was sentence to life in prison

Majority and Dissenting Opinions Majority: Justice Stevens, Kennedy, O’Conner, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer Author of Majority Opinion: Justice John Stevens The majority stated that retarded individuals “should be tried and punished when they commit crimes.” However, “because of their disabilities in areas of reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, however, they do not act with the level of moral culpability that characterizes the most serious adult criminal conduct.”

Majority and Dissenting Opinions Dissenters: Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia and Thomas Author of Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice Rehnquist In the dissent, Chief Justice Rehnquist writes “those defendants who indisputably are competent to stand trial, aware of the punishment they are about to suffer and why, and whose mental retardation has been found an insufficiently compelling reason to lessen their individual responsibility for the crime.” He follows this by stating that if a jury saw Atkins as mentally competent, he deserved his penalty.

Judicial Impact Benefits: The ruling prevents the execution of individuals that deserve the benefits of the ruling Contrasts: The ruling creates a hole in the criminal justice system that encourages criminals to seek asylum instead of facing their deserved punishment.

Works Cited "Atkins v. Virginia." Case Briefs. Case Briefs, n.d. Web. 22 Nov "Atkins v. Virginia." Oyez. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, n.d. Web. 23 Nov "Atkins v. Virginia." The Free Dictionary. Farlex, n.d. Web. 23 Nov Boyd, Megan E. "Lady (Legal) Writer." : Storytelling and Atkins v. Virginia. Lady (Legal) Writer, 29 July Web. 02 Dec Kinser, Cynthia D. "ATKINS v. COMMONWEALTH." Findlaw. The U.S. Supreme Court, n.d. Web. 24 Nov Stevens, John P., and William Rehnquist. "Atkins v. Virginia." Legal Information Institute. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 23 Nov "Supreme Court Makes Pact To Lose Virginity By End Of Year." The Onion. The Onion, 13 Nov Web. 02 Dec