Content deleted Content added
m Robot - Removing category United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 24. |
changed "retarded" to "disabled" per talk page request |
||
| (325 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|2005 U.S. Supreme Court case on capital punishment}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = Roper v. Simmons
| FullName = Donald P. Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, Petitioner v. Christopher Simmons
| ArgueDate = October 13
| ArgueYear = 2004
| DecideDate = March 1
| DecideYear = 2005
| USVol = 543
| USPage = 551
| Docket = 03-633
| OralArgument = https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_633/argument
| ParallelCitations = 125 S. Ct. 1183; 161 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 1; 2005 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 2200; 73 U.S.L.W. 4153; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 131
| Prior = Defendant convicted, motion for postconviction relief denied, [[Missouri Circuit Courts|Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri]]; affirmed, ''State v. Simmons'', 944 [[S.W.2d]] [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2441278/state-v-simmons/ 165] ([[Supreme Court of Missouri|Mo.]] 1997) (''[[en banc]]''), ''[[certiorari|cert.]]'' denied, {{ussc|522|953|1997|el=no}}. Denial of petition for a writ of ''[[habeas corpus]]'' affirmed, ''Simmons v. Bowersox'', 235 [[F.3d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/235/1124/550326/ 1124] ([[8th Cir.]] 2001), ''cert.'' denied, {{ussc|534|924|2001|el=no}}. Petition for a writ of ''habeas corpus'' granted, ''State ex rel. Simmons v. Roper'', 112 [[S.W.3d]] [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1690384/state-ex-rel-simmons-v-roper/ 397] (Mo. 2003) (''en banc''), ''cert.'' granted, {{ussc|540|1160|2004|el=no}}.
| Subsequent =
| Holding = The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, and ''[[Stanford v. Kentucky]]'' overruled.
| Majority = [[s:Roper v. Simmons/Opinion of the Court|Kennedy]]
| JoinMajority = Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
| Concurrence = [[s:Roper v. Simmons/Concurrence Stevens|Stevens]]
| JoinConcurrence = Ginsburg
| Dissent = [[s:Roper v. Simmons/Dissent O'Connor|O'Connor]]
| Dissent2 = [[s:Roper v. Simmons/Dissent Scalia|Scalia]]
| JoinDissent2 = Rehnquist, Thomas
| LawsApplied = [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amends. VIII]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|XIV]]
| Overturned previous case = ''[[Stanford v. Kentucky]]'' (1989)
}}
'''''Roper v. Simmons''''',
==
=== Facts of the case ===
In the state of [[Missouri]] in 1993, 17-year-old Christopher Simmons concocted a plan to commit [[burglary]] and [[murder]], having previously told friends that he "wanted to kill someone" and that he "believed he could get away with it because he was a minor".<ref>{{Bluebook journal|last=Myers|first=Wayne|year=2006|title=Roper v. Simmons: The Collision of National Consensus and Proportionality Review|volume=96|page=947–994|journal=J. Crim. L. & Criminology|url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=7240&context=jclc|url-access=May 22, 2023|punct= (internal quotation marks omitted).}}</ref> Simmons convinced two of his friends to join him: 15-year-old Charles Benjamin and 16-year-old John Tessmer.<ref name=":0">''Simmons'', at 556.</ref> Simmons met with Benjamin and Tessmer at 2 a.m. to carry out their plan, but Tessmer decided to leave before any crimes were committed.{{refn|Simmons, Benjamin, and Tessmer met on September 9, 1993 near the trailer of an older neighbor, a 29-year-old ex-convict named Brian Moomey, to discuss their plan. Simmons and his friends frequently visited Moomey's trailer in the months preceding the murder, where Moomey would let them drink alcohol and take drugs. Moomey would later be a key witness at trial.<ref>{{Bluebook journal|last=Emens|first=Elizabeth F.|year=2005|journal=Sup. Ct. Rev.|volume=2005|title=Aggravating Youth: Roper v Simmons and Age Discrimination|page=51–102|url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/655191|url-access=May 22, 2023}}</ref>|group=fn}}<ref name=":0"/> Simmons and Benjamin later broke into the home of Shirley Crook, a 46-year-old neighbor, where they [[Duct tape|duct-taped]] her mouth and eyes shut before [[Kidnapping|abducting]] her in her van.<ref>{{smallcaps|Emens}}, at 56.</ref> Simmons drove Crook's van to [[Castlewood State Park]] and parked near a railroad [[trestle bridge]], where Simmons and Benjamin unloaded Crook from the van.<ref>Br. of Roper 6.</ref> They then covered her head with a towel, wrapped her in [[Electrical wiring|electrical wire]], and threw her off of the trestle bridge into the [[Meramec River]] while she was still alive and conscious.{{Refn|Benjamin stated in a 2002 interview that he waited in the car while Simmons threw Crook off of the bridge and that he didn't know what happened to Crook until the following morning. However, prosecutors stated that it would have taken both Simmons and Benjamin to carry Crook's body to the bridge.<ref>Tim Rowden, ''[https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-louis-post-dispatch-murderer-how-te/125684357/ Murderer: How teen burglars became killers]'', {{smallcaps|[[St. Louis Post-Dispatch]]}}, June 6, 2002.</ref>|group=fn}}<ref>''Simmons'', at 556–557; at 618 (Scalia, J., dissenting).</ref> Crook's body was discovered that afternoon by a group of fishermen.{{Refn|Shirley Crook was reported as a missing person earlier that afternoon by her husband Steven Crook, who was away from home on an overnight trip on the night of the murder.<ref name="Simmons, at 557">''Simmons'', at 557.</ref>|group=fn}}<ref>Roy Malone, ''[https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-louis-post-dispatch-teens-killed-wom/125124827/ Teens Killed Woman, Got $6, Police Say]'', {{smallcaps|[[St. Louis Post-Dispatch]]}}, September 11, 1993.</ref>
Simmons was heard "bragging about the murder" later that day and told his friends that he had killed a woman.<ref>{{Smallcaps|Myers}}, at 957.</ref> The day after the murder, police arrested Simmons and Benjamin at their high school after receiving a tip that they were involved in the murder.<ref>{{Bluebook website|last=O'Brien|first=Tim|title=Juvenile Death Penalty Update|url=https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2005/03/04/march-4-2005-juvenile-death-penalty-update/13046/|publisher=PBS|date=March 4, 2005}}</ref> At the police station in [[Fenton, Missouri]], Simmons waived his [[Right to counsel|right to attorney]] and agreed to answer questions.<ref>Br. of Roper 5.</ref> Simmons initially denied involvement but later confessed to the murder and agreed to perform a videotaped reenactment at the crime scene.<ref name="Br. of Simmons 2">Br. of Simmons 2.</ref> Simmons further told detectives that he recognized Crook as someone he had been in a minor traffic accident with several months earlier and that he believed Crook recognized him as well.<ref name="Br. of Simmons 2"/>
Simmons was charged with first-degree murder, burglary, kidnapping, and stealing.<ref>''State v. Simmons'', 944 [[South Western Reporter|S.W.2d]] [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2441278/state-v-simmons/ 165] ([[Supreme Court of Missouri|Mo.]] 1997) (hereinafter cited as ''Simmons II'').</ref> He was tried as an adult.<ref name="Simmons, at 557">''Simmons'', at 557.</ref> At trial, Tessmer testified that Simmons planned the murder in advance.{{Refn|Tessmer was charged with criminal conspiracy for his role in the murder, but the charges were dropped in exchange for his testimony against Simmons.<ref name=":0"/>|group=fn}} The jury found Simmons guilty of Crook's murder and recommended the [[Capital punishment|death penalty]], which the trial court imposed. For his role, Benjamin was sentenced to [[Life imprisonment in the United States|life without parole]].<ref>Paul Raeburn, ''[https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/too-immature-for-the-death-penalty.html Too Immature for the Death Penalty?]'', {{smallcaps|[[The New York Times|N.Y. Times]]}}, October 17, 2004.</ref>
=== Lower court proceedings ===
Simmons moved for the trial court to set aside the conviction and sentence, citing, in part, ineffective assistance of counsel. His age, and thus impulsiveness, along with a troubled background, were brought up as issues that Simmons claimed should have been raised at the sentencing phase. The trial court rejected the motion, and Simmons appealed.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=State v. Simmons |vol=944 |reporter=S.W.2d |opinion=165 |court=[[Supreme Court of Missouri|Mo.]] |date=1997 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2441278/state-v-simmons/ |access-date=2018-06-17 }}</ref>
The case worked its way up the court system, with the courts continuing to uphold the death sentence.<ref>''Simmons v. Bowersox'', 235 [[F.3d]] [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/235/1124/550326/ 1124] ([[8th Cir.]] 2001), ''cert.'' denied, {{ussc|534|924|2001|el=no}}.</ref> However, in light of a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in ''[[Atkins v. Virginia]]'',<ref name=Atkins>{{ussc|name=Atkins v. Virginia|536|304|2002}}.</ref> that overturned the death penalty for the [[intellectual disability|intellectually disabled]], Simmons filed a new petition for state post-conviction relief. The [[Supreme Court of Missouri]] concluded that "a national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders" and held that such punishment now violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=State ex rel. Simmons v. Roper |vol=112 |reporter=S.W.3d |opinion=397 |court=[[Supreme Court of Missouri|Mo.]] |date=2003 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1690384/state-ex-rel-simmons-v-roper/ |access-date=2018-06-17 }}</ref> They sentenced Simmons to life imprisonment without parole.
The State of Missouri appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.<ref>{{ussc|name=Roper v. Simmons|540|1160|2004|el=no}}. (Donald P. Roper, the Superintendent of the correctional facility where Simmons was held, was a party to the action because it was brought as a petition for a writ of ''[[habeas corpus]]''.)</ref>
== Supreme Court ==
This case was argued on October 13, 2004. The appeal challenged the constitutionality of capital punishment for persons who were juveniles when their crimes were committed, citing the [[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eighth Amendment]] protection against [[cruel and unusual punishment]].
A 1988 Supreme Court decision, ''[[Thompson v. Oklahoma]]'', barred execution of offenders under the age of 16.<ref>{{ussc|name=Thompson v. Oklahoma|volume=487|page=815|year=1988}}.</ref> In 1989, another case, ''[[Stanford v. Kentucky]],'' upheld the possibility of capital punishment for offenders who were 16 or 17 years old when they committed the capital offense.<ref name="Stanford">{{ussc|name=Stanford v. Kentucky|volume=492|page=361|pin=|year=1989}}.</ref> The same day in 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in ''[[Penry v. Lynaugh]]'' that it was permissible to execute the intellectually disabled.<ref>{{ussc|name=Penry v. Lynaugh|492|302|1989}}.</ref> However, in 2002, that decision was overruled in ''[[Atkins v. Virginia]],'' where the Court held that evolving standards of decency had made the execution of the mentally disabled "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus unconstitutional.<ref name="Atkins" />
=== Opinion of the Court ===
Under the "evolving standards of decency" test, the Court held that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the murder. Writing for the majority, [[Anthony Kennedy|Justice Kennedy]] cited a body of sociological and scientific research{{ref|research}} that found that juveniles have a lack of maturity and sense of responsibility compared to adults. Adolescents were found to be over-represented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior. The Court noted that in recognition of the comparative immaturity and irresponsibility of juveniles, almost every state prohibited those under age 18 from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent. The studies also found that juveniles are more vulnerable to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure. They have less control, or experience with control, over their own environment. They also lack the freedom that adults have, to escape a criminogenic setting.<ref>See {{Citation |last=Steinberg | author-link = Laurence Steinberg |first=Laurence |name-list-style=amp |last2=Scott |first2=Elizabeth S. |title=Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty |journal=American Psychologist |volume=58 |issue=12 |pages=1009–1018 [p. 1014] |year=2003 |doi=10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1009 |pmid=14664689 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.497.7026 }}.</ref>
In support of the "national consensus" position, the Court noted that states were reducing the frequency by which they applied capital punishment to juvenile offenders. At the time of the decision, [[List of juveniles executed in the United States since 1976|20 states had the juvenile death penalty on the books]], but only six states had executed prisoners since 1989 for crimes committed as juveniles. Only three states had done so since 1994: [[Oklahoma]], [[Texas]], and [[Virginia]]. Furthermore, five of the states that allowed the juvenile death penalty at the time of the 1989 case had since abolished it.
The Court also looked to practices in other countries to support the holding. Between 1990 and the time of the case, the court said, "only seven countries other than the United States ha[d] executed juvenile offenders ... : [[Iran]], [[Pakistan]], [[Saudi Arabia]], [[Yemen]], [[Nigeria]], the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]], and [[China]]." Justice Kennedy noted that since 1990, each of those countries had either abolished the death penalty for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice, and that the United States stood alone in allowing execution of juvenile offenders. The Court also noted that only the United States and [[Somalia]] had not ratified Article 37 of the [[United Nations]] [[Convention on the Rights of the Child]] (September 2, 1990), which expressly prohibits capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles. Somalia went on to ratify it in 2015.
=== Other opinions ===
[[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia]] wrote a dissent joined by [[William Rehnquist|Chief Justice Rehnquist]] and [[Clarence Thomas|Justice Thomas]]. [[Sandra Day O'Connor|Justice O'Connor]] also wrote a dissenting opinion. The dissents put into question whether a "national consensus" had formed among the state laws, citing the fact that at the time of the ruling, only 18 of the 38 states allowing the death penalty (47%) prohibited the execution of juveniles.
However, the primary objection of the Court's two [[originalism|originalists]], Justices Scalia and Thomas, was whether such a consensus was relevant. Justice Scalia argued that the appropriate question was not whether there was presently a consensus against the execution of juveniles, but rather whether the execution of such defendants was considered cruel and unusual at the point at which the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]] was ratified.
In addition, Justice Scalia also objected in general to the Court's willingness to take guidance from foreign law in interpreting the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]; his dissent questioned not only the relevance of foreign law but also claimed the Court would "invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise", noting that in the case of [[abortion]], U.S. laws are less restrictive than the international norm.
Scalia also attacked the majority opinion as being fundamentally antidemocratic. His dissent cited a passage from ''[[The Federalist Papers]]'' in arguing that the role of the judiciary in the constitutional scheme is to interpret the law as formulated in democratically selected legislatures. He argued that it is for the legislature, acting in the manner prescribed in [[Article Five of the United States Constitution|Article V]] of the Constitution to offer amendments to the Constitution in light of the evolving standard of decency, not for the Court to make what he considered ''de facto'' amendments.
==Implications==
[[
=== Impact on other death row prisoners ===
In addition to striking down the death sentence of Christopher Simmons, the Supreme Court's decision in ''Roper v. Simmons'' also canceled the death sentences of 72 others for crimes they committed while younger than age 18. The greatest effects were in Texas, where 29 juvenile offenders were awaiting execution, and in Alabama, where 13 on death row had been sentenced as juveniles. No other state had more than five such offenders on death row.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Case Summaries of Juvenile Offenders Who Were on Death Row in the United States|url=https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/case-summaries-of-juvenile-offenders-who-were-on-death-row-in-the-united-states|access-date=2021-04-26|website=Death Penalty Information Center|language=en-US}}</ref>
Prior to the ''Roper'' decision, there had been 22 [[List of juveniles executed in the United States since 1976|executions since 1976 of individuals who were juveniles]] at the time they committed the crime; 13 were in Texas.
In ''Ex parte Adams'', the [[Supreme Court of Alabama]] remanded the death sentence of a juvenile for a rehearing in the lower court in light of the ''Roper'' decision, which was released while the Adams case was pending [[appeal]].<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Ex parte Adams|court=[[Supreme Court of Alabama|Ala.]]|reporter=So. 2d|vol=955|opinion=1106|date=2005|url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1619970/ex-parte-adams/|access-date=2018-06-17}}</ref> Justice [[Tom Parker (judge)|Tom Parker]], who had participated in the [[prosecutor|prosecution]] of the case, [[recusal|recused]] himself. He published an [[Editorial|op-ed]] in ''[[The Birmingham News]]'' to criticize his non-recused colleagues for their decision. Justice Parker wrote that "State supreme courts may decline to follow bad U.S. Supreme Court [[precedent]]s because those decisions bind only the parties to the particular case".
=== Constitutional jurisprudence ===
The majority ruling highlighted several controversies in the field of constitutional [[jurisprudence]]. The first is the use of the concept of an evolving "national consensus" to allow for the re-interpretation of previous rulings. In this case, the evolving consensus was influenced by behavioral and other research studies, such as those presented to the court in an [[amicus brief]] by the [[American Psychological Association]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/roper.pdf|title=Roper v. Simmons |work=PsychLAW |publisher=American Psychological Association |access-date=2010-04-01}}</ref> What constitutes evidence for such a consensus—and from where the judicial branch derives its authority to determine it and implement it into law, a function constitutionally vested in the legislative branch, especially in the case of capital punishment—is unclear at this point.{{citation needed|date=September 2022}} In ''Roper v. Simmons'' the majority cited the abolishment of juvenile capital punishment in 30 states (18 of the 38 allowing capital punishment) as evidence of such a consensus. In ''[[Atkins v. Virginia]]'',<ref name=Atkins/> it was the "consensus" of the 30 states (18 of 38 allowing capital punishment) that had banned execution of the mildly disabled.
Another controversy is the role of foreign laws and norms in the interpretation of U.S. law. In 2004 [[United States House of Representatives|Representative]] [[Tom Feeney]] (R-FL) introduced a non-binding resolution instructing the judiciary to ignore foreign precedent when making their rulings: "This resolution advises the courts they are no longer engaging in 'good behavior' in the meaning of the Constitution and they may subject themselves to the ultimate remedy, which would be impeachment."<ref>[http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4506232 "A flap over foreign matter at the Supreme Court"] - NBC News coverage of Feeney resolution</ref>
=== Beltway sniper case ===
{{see also|D.C. sniper attacks}}
The implications of this ruling were immediately felt in the State of [[Virginia]], where [[Lee Boyd Malvo]] became no longer eligible for the death penalty for his role in the [[D.C. sniper attacks|Beltway sniper attacks]] in October 2002. At the time of the attacks, Malvo was 17 years old. Malvo had already been spared the death penalty in his first trial for the murder of [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] employee Linda Franklin in [[Falls Church, Virginia]], and had pleaded guilty in another case in [[Spotsylvania County, Virginia|Spotsylvania County]]; however, he had yet to face trial in [[Prince William County, Virginia]], as well as in [[Washington, D.C.]], [[Washington (state)|Washington state]], [[Texas]], [[Maryland]], [[Louisiana]], [[California]], [[Arizona]] and [[Alabama]]. In light of this Supreme Court decision, the prosecutors in Prince William County decided not to pursue the charges against Malvo. At the outset of the Beltway sniper prosecutions, the primary reason for extraditing the two suspects from [[Maryland]], where they were arrested, to Virginia, was the difference in how the two states deal with the death penalty. While the death penalty was allowed in Maryland, it was only applied to persons who were adults at the time of their crimes, whereas Virginia had also allowed the death penalty for offenders who had been juveniles when their crimes were committed.
=== Subsequent developments ===
The State sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, raising a single issue, "Whether this Court should reconsider its decision in ''Roper v. Simmons'', 543 U.S. 551 (2005)". The Supreme Court denied ''[[certiorari]]'' (i.e., declined to take the case for review) on June 19, 2006, without a published dissent.{{Citation needed|date=May 2023}}
== See also ==
* ''[[Kennedy v. Louisiana]]'' (2008)
* ''[[Graham v. Florida]]'' (2010)
* ''[[Miller v. Alabama]]'' (2012)
* [[Capital punishment for juveniles in the United States]]
== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=fn}}
== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Further reading ==
{{wikinews|U.S. Supreme Court: Death penalty for juveniles is unconstitutional}}
* Lane, Charles (March 2, 2005) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62584-2005Mar1.html 5-4 Supreme Court Abolishes Juvenile Executions] ''[[The Washington Post]]'', p. A01.
*
* {{Bluebook journal | first=Wayne A. | last=Logan | title=Proportionality and Punishment: Imposing Life without Parole on Juveniles | volume=33 | journal=Wake Forest L. Rev. | page=681 | pin= | url=https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/203/ | year=1998 }}
* {{
* [http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/juvenile-offenders-who-were-death-row Death Penalty Information Center – Juvenile Offenders Who Were On Death Row]
==External links==
* {{caselaw source
| case = ''Roper v. Simmons'', {{Ussc|543|551|2005|el=no}}
| cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZS.html
| courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/137749/roper-v-simmons/
| googlescholar =https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16987406842050815187
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-633
| other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
| other_url1 =https://web.archive.org/web/0/{{SCOTUS URL Slip|04|03-633}}
}}
* [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2004/03-633.pdf ''Transcript of Oral Argument'', Roper v. Simmons], October 13, 2004
* ''[https://www.findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/03-633/03-633.pet.pdf Petition for a Writ of Certiorari]'', October 24, 2003
* ''[https://www.findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/03-633/03-633.mer.pet.pdf Brief of Petitioner, Donald P. Roper]'', April 20, 2004
* ''[https://www.findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/03-633/03-633.mer.pet.rep.pdf Reply Brief of Petitioner, Donald P. Roper]'', September 7, 2004
* ''[https://www.findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/03-633/03-633.mer.resp.pdf Brief of Respondent, Christopher Simmons]'', July 19, 2004
{{US8thAmendment}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Roper v. Simmons}}
[[Category:United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision]]
[[Category:United States children's rights case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
Line 64 ⟶ 140:
[[Category:Capital punishment in Missouri]]
[[Category:2005 in United States case law]]
[[Category:Capital punishment for juveniles]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court]]
| |||