| Shafer v. South Carolina | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 9, 2001 Decided March 20, 2001 | |
| Full case name | Wesley Aaron Shafer, Jr., Petitioner v. South Carolina |
| Citations | 532 U.S. 36 (more) 121 S. Ct. 1263; 149 L. Ed. 2d 178 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Holding | |
| Where a capital defendant's future dangerousness is at issue, and the only sentencing alternative to death is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, due process entitles the defendant to inform the jury of his future parole ineligibility. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer |
| Dissent | Scalia |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. amend. VIII | |
Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned the ability of a defendant to tell the jury that, absent a penalty of death, a penalty of life imprisonment would not permit early release of a prisoner on parole. While the question had been decided in the case of Simmons v. South Carolina, this case dealt with the extent of the ruling.