In 2004, the Supreme Court reviewed Robert Dennard’s murder conviction. During the sentencing phase of his Texas trial, the defendant asserted that he had an IQ of 67.The instructions the judge gave the jury when it was considering whether to apply the death penalty, however, did not emphasize this information. Therefore, the jury only focused on his guilt and his intent and did not consider his IQ. This essay will analyze the Supreme Court’s review of this case including the background, various appeals and court decisions relevant to the case, and the implications of the final decision. It will also address the ethical implications of imposing the death penalty on a person with an IQ of 67. The sentence imposed by the original jury …show more content…
Would only be unconstitutional if the defendant proved that his mental retardation cause the crime but just because he has it doesn’t mean he can’t receive death. In a fairly narrow ruling 6-to-3 decision written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that Tennard's mental retardation could reasonably be understood as relevant to his crime. Especially given the fact that the prosecutor emphasized Tennard's retardation when discussing the likelihood that he would be dangerous in the future, the Court found that the jury instructions did not sufficiently permit the jury to weigh Tennard's mental retardation in his favor. Judge Sandra Day O’Connor by a 6-3 decision say that his mental retardation could have helped in him committing his crime. The jury’s instructions were not good enough. As of today Tennard's death sentence was reduced to life in prison The case formed part of a series of decisions in which the Supreme Court adjusted and refined the capital sentencing methods of the various