Schriro v. Smith (2005)
- Docket
- 04-1475
- Decided
- 2005-01-01
Summary
Question: Does the mental retardation claim of a capital defendant have to be resolved by a jury trial? Conclusion: In a per curiam decision, the Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District erred in commanding the Arizona courts to conduct a jury trial to resolve Smith’s mental retardation claim. The Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia clearly states that “we leave to the State[s] the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon [their] execution of sentences.” Because Arizona, like other states, has developed its own ways for adjudicating claims of mental retardation, those processes should be observed.