ABSTRACT
In Ring v. Arizona, 536 US 584, the US Supreme Court ended the practice of judges deciding the critical sentencing issues in a death penalty case. Timothy Ring was tried in Arizona for murder, and although the jurors deadlocked on premeditated murder, they found Ring guilty of felony-murder occurring in the course of an armed robbery. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in delivering the seven-two opinion of the Court finding for Ring, turned to the dissent in Walton v. Arizona, 497 US 639, and used the precedent of Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145. Ring underscored the importance of trial by jury, but questions have arisen about its applicability. Death-row inmates in various states have begun to raise appeals based on Ring arguing that their sentences were unconstitutional. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, dissented, centering on the effect of Ring.
