October Term 2005 · Docket 04-928
Can a state bar a defendant from arguing guilt-phase doubts during a death penalty hearing?
Oregon seeks to prevent a defendant from arguing guilt-phase doubts during sentencing. The defendant claims this violates the Eighth Amendment.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — 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
Ms. Williams argued that the Eighth Amendment requires juries to consider mitigation related to the defendant's background or offense circumstances.
Mr. Shanmugam argued that prohibiting guilt-phase relitigation during sentencing does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Justice O'Connor questioned whether the Oregon Supreme Court misapprehended the facts regarding the defendant's presence during the crime.
Justice Breyer asked if the Oregon court mistakenly believed the defendant was not present during the crime.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 49-33 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 49-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 35-54 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 35-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 1-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether a state can block a defendant from arguing guilt-phase doubts during a death penalty hearing. The defendant claims this violates the Eighth Amendment.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 49-33 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 49-33
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 7, 2005.
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 61, lines 35-54 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 35-54
What each side wants
Oregon wants the Court to affirm the state's ban on guilt-phase arguments during sentencing.
Guzek wants the Court to allow him to argue guilt-phase doubts during his death penalty hearing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 49-33 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 49-33
What each side says
Oregon argues that prohibiting guilt-phase relitigation during sentencing does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Guzek argues that the Eighth Amendment requires juries to consider mitigation related to the defendant's background or offense circumstances.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 49-33 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 49-33
What the justices asked
Justice O'Connor asked if some of the mother's testimony would be admissible at the penalty stage under Oregon law.
Justice Breyer asked if the Oregon court misapprehended the facts regarding the defendant's presence during the crime.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 35-54 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 35-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 1-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-47
Why it matters
This case determines whether states can restrict what defendants argue during death penalty hearings. It affects the scope of mitigation evidence in capital sentencing.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 49-33 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 49-33
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 41-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 43-43 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 43-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 21-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 21-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 49-3 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 49-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-35 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-9 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 35-54 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 35-54
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-39 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 1-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-47
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 20, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 49-33 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 49-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 20, lines 43-3 — Transcript, file page 20, lines 43-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 30, lines 13-27 — Transcript, file page 30, lines 13-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 49-33 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 49-33
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.