Penry v. Johnson

Penry v. Johnson
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 27, 2001 Decided June 4, 2001
Full case name	Johnny Paul Penry, Petitioner v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
Citations	532 U.S. 782 (more) 121 S. Ct. 1910; 150 L. Ed. 2d 9; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 4309; 69 U.S.L.W. 4402; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4516; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 5539; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 2744; 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 316
Case history
Prior	On remand after Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989); sentenced to death on retrial, sentence affirmed Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. Crim. App., 1995); appeal denied, 215 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 2000); cert. granted, 531 U.S. 1010 (2000).
Subsequent	Penry v. State, 178 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. Crim. App., 2005)
Holding
A Texas trial court's supplemental instruction on mitigating evidence of mental retardation for sentencing was not constitutionally adequate. Further, the admission into evidence of statements from a psychiatric report based on an uncounseled interview with the defendant does not violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.
Court membership
Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority	O'Connor, joined by unanimous (parts I, II, III-A); Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer (part III-B)
Concur/dissent	Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case which concerned whether instructions given to a Texas jury were constitutionally adequate to emphasize the mitigating factors in sentencing of defendants who are intellectually disabled ("retarded" in the Court's words.)^[1] The Texas courts had determined the sentencing instructions were consistent with prior Supreme Court jurisprudence, but the Court in a divided decision reversed, finding the sentencing instructions insufficient. This was the second time Penry's case made it to the Supreme Court.