Skip to content
Name: Penry v. Johnson
Case #: 00-6677
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 06/04/2001
Subsequent History: None
Summary

The trial court did err when it failed to follow the mandates of Penry v. Lynaugh (1989) 492 U.S. 302, (“Penry I”), by failing to instruct the jury in a manner which would allow them to consider and give effect to evidence of mental retardation as mitigating evidence. Reversal of the penalty phase was therefore required. J. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented on the mental retardation issue.