October Term 2000 · Docket 00-5250
Can a state limit a defendant's right to present mitigation evidence?
The dispute centers on whether South Carolina can restrict a defendant's ability to show mitigating factors during sentencing.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
David Bruck argued the state raises three arguments to evade prior precedent.
The state argued its position aligns with the 1994 Supreme Court decision.
Chief Justice Rehnquist called the case submitted after hearing both advocates.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 39-41
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
David Bruck argues the state tries to evade prior Supreme Court precedent. The state contends its rules remain valid under existing law.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 9, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to strike down the state's restrictive sentencing rules.
The state wants the Court to uphold its current legal framework for capital sentencing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
What each side says
the side that brought the case claims the state's arguments are designed to evade prior Supreme Court precedent.
The state asserts its current legal position remains consistent with the 1994 decision.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the side that brought the case to begin his argument.
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the opposing side to begin his argument.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 39-41
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of a defendant's right to present mitigation evidence. It determines how states structure capital sentencing procedures. It impacts the balance between state authority and individual rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 39-41
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 17-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-13
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.