tennard
dretke
director
texas
department
criminal
justice
correctional
institutions
division
argued
march
decided
june
counsel
record
petitioner
tennard
mandy
welch
richard
burr
burr
welch
houston
tx
respondent
dretke
charles
palmer
assistant
attorney
general
austin
tx
capital
murder
trial
penalty
phase
petitioner
tennard
presented
evidence
iq
jury
instructed
determine
appropriate
punishment
considering
two
special
issues
inquired
whether
crime
committed
deliberately
whether
defendant
posed
risk
future
dangerousness
materially
identical
two
special
issues
found
insufficient
penry
lynaugh
jury
give
effect
penry
mitigating
mental
retardation
childhood
abuse
evidence
tennard
jury
answered
special
issues
affirmatively
tennard
sentenced
death
federal
district
denied
tennard
federal
habeas
petition
claimed
death
sentence
violated
eighth
amendment
interpreted
penry
denied
certificate
appealability
coa
fifth
circuit
agreed
tennard
entitled
coa
applied
threshold
test
tennard
mitigating
evidence
asking
whether
met
fifth
circuit
standard
constitutional
relevance
penry
cases
whether
evidence
uniquely
severe
permanent
handicap
bore
nexus
crime
concluded
low
iq
evidence
alone
constitute
uniquely
severe
condition
evidence
tied
tennard
iq
retardation
even
low
iq
amounted
mental
retardation
evidence
tennard
show
crime
attributable
vacated
judgment
remanded
consideration
light
atkins
virginia
fifth
circuit
reinstated
prior
opinion
held
reasonable
jurists
find
district
assessment
constitutional
claims
debatable
wrong
slack
mcdaniel
coa
issued
pp
coa
issue
applicant
made
substantial
showing
denial
constitutional
right
demonstrating
reasonable
jurists
find
district
assessment
constitutional
claims
debatable
wrong
relief
may
granted
unless
state
adjudication
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
pp
fifth
circuit
assessed
tennard
penry
claim
improper
standard
threshold
constitutional
relevance
screening
test
foundation
decisions
relevance
issue
penry
spoke
expansive
terms
addressing
relevance
standard
directly
mckoy
north
carolina
finding
applicable
general
evidentiary
standard
tendency
make
existence
fact
consequence
determination
action
probable
less
probable
without
evidence
low
relevance
threshold
met
eighth
amendment
requires
jury
must
able
consider
give
effect
capital
defendant
mitigating
evidence
boyde
california
fifth
circuit
test
inconsistent
principles
thus
neither
uniquely
severe
nexus
element
fifth
circuit
test
proper
reason
reach
substance
tennard
penry
claims
pp
turning
analysis
fifth
circuit
conducted
reasonable
jurists
conclude
tennard
low
iq
evidence
relevant
mitigating
evidence
texas
criminal
appeals
application
penry
unreasonable
since
relationship
special
issues
tennard
low
iq
evidence
essential
features
issues
penry
mental
retardation
evidence
impaired
intellectual
functioning
mitigating
dimension
beyond
impact
ability
act
deliberately
reasonable
jurist
conclude
jury
might
given
low
iq
evidence
aggravating
effect
considering
tennard
future
dangerousness
indeed
prosecutor
pressed
exactly
problematic
interpretation
special
issues
suggesting
tennard
low
iq
irrelevant
mitigation
relevant
future
dangerousness
pp
reversed
remanded
delivered
opinion
stevens
kennedy
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
rehnquist
scalia
thomas
filed
dissenting
opinions
robert
james
tennard
petitioner
doug
dretke
director
texas
department
criminal
justice
correctional
institutions
division
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
june
justice
delivered
opinion
penry
lynaugh
penry
held
texas
capital
sentencing
scheme
provided
constitutionally
inadequate
vehicle
jurors
consider
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
mental
retardation
childhood
abuse
petitioner
presented
petitioner
case
argues
scheme
inadequate
jurors
give
effect
evidence
low
intelligence
texas
courts
rejected
claim
federal
district
denied
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
conclude
reasonable
jurists
find
district
assessment
constitutional
claims
debatable
wrong
slack
mcdaniel
therefore
hold
certificate
appealability
issued
petitioner
robert
tennard
convicted
jury
capital
murder
october
evidence
presented
trial
indicated
tennard
two
accomplices
killed
two
neighbors
robbed
house
tennard
stabbed
one
victims
death
one
accomplices
killed
victim
hatchet
penalty
phase
trial
defense
counsel
called
one
witness
tennard
parole
officer
testified
tennard
department
corrections
record
prior
incarceration
indicated
iq
app
testified
iq
test
administered
matter
course
ibid
report
indicated
tennard
years
old
time
prepared
admitted
evidence
parole
officer
testified
know
administered
test
government
introduced
evidence
penalty
phase
regarding
prior
conviction
rape
committed
tennard
rape
victim
testified
escaped
window
tennard
permitted
go
bathroom
take
bath
promising
run
away
jury
instructed
consider
appropriate
punishment
answering
two
special
issues
used
time
texas
establish
whether
sentence
life
imprisonment
death
imposed
conduct
defendant
robert
james
tennard
caused
death
deceased
committed
deliberately
reasonable
expectation
death
deceased
another
result
deliberateness
special
issue
probability
defendant
robert
james
tennard
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
future
dangerousness
special
issue
closing
argument
defense
counsel
relied
iq
score
rape
victim
testimony
suggest
tennard
limited
mental
faculties
gullible
nature
mitigated
culpability
tennard
got
iq
guy
told
poor
unfortunate
woman
rape
victim
trying
work
day
let
leave
believed
guy
iq
goes
sure
enough
escapes
like
uncontroverted
testimony
got
man
us
got
intelligence
quotient
low
rebuttal
prosecution
suggested
low
iq
evidence
simply
irrelevant
question
mitigation
whether
low
iq
really
issue
legislature
asking
address
question
future
dangerousness
special
issue
reasons
became
danger
really
relevant
fact
danger
evidence
shows
danger
criteria
use
answering
question
jury
answered
special
issues
affirmative
tennard
accordingly
sentenced
death
unsuccessful
direct
appeal
tennard
sought
state
postconviction
relief
argued
light
instructions
given
jury
death
sentence
obtained
violation
eighth
amendment
interpreted
penry
case
held
enough
simply
allow
defendant
present
mitigating
evidence
sentencer
sentencer
must
also
able
consider
give
effect
evidence
imposing
sentence
penry
supra
see
also
penry
johnson
penry
ii
describing
effect
language
penry
key
decision
concluded
two
special
issues
presented
tennard
jury
plus
third
immaterial
questions
us
insufficient
jury
penry
case
consider
give
effect
penry
evidence
mental
retardation
childhood
abuse
therefore
ran
afoul
eighth
amendment
penry
mental
retardation
evidence
held
relevance
moral
culpability
beyond
scope
deliberateness
special
verdict
questio
ersonal
culpability
solely
function
defendant
capacity
act
brackets
original
moreover
evidence
concerning
penry
mental
retardation
indicated
one
effect
retardation
inability
learn
mistakes
retardation
relevant
future
dangerousness
special
issue
aggravating
factor
evidence
childhood
abuse
held
two
special
issues
simply
failed
provide
vehicle
jury
give
mitigating
effect
texas
criminal
appeals
rejected
tennard
penry
claim
ex
parte
tennard
en
banc
writing
plurality
four
presiding
judge
mccormick
observed
definition
mental
retardation
adopted
texas
involves
three
components
subaverage
general
intellectual
functioning
concurrent
deficits
adaptive
behavior
onset
early
development
period
concluded
tennard
evidence
low
iq
score
standing
alone
meet
definition
qualitatively
quantitatively
tennard
low
iq
evidence
approach
level
johnny
paul
penry
evidence
mental
retardation
find
evidence
record
applicant
mentally
retarded
plurality
went
consider
whether
tennard
entitled
relief
penry
even
low
iq
fell
within
penry
definition
mental
retardation
held
explained
unlike
evidence
presented
penry
case
evidence
tennard
low
iq
rendered
unable
appreciate
wrongfulness
conduct
committed
offense
low
iq
rendered
unable
learn
mistakes
control
impulses
found
danger
jury
given
evidence
aggravating
effect
answering
future
dangerousness
special
issue
low
iq
gullibility
evidence
beyond
jury
effective
reach
jury
used
evidence
answer
deliberateness
special
issue
ibid
two
judges
concurred
separately
wrote
sustained
penry
claim
evidence
mental
retardation
even
cases
evidence
mental
retardation
always
something
presented
case
opinion
meyers
citations
omitted
taking
permissive
view
evidence
impaired
intellectual
functioning
plurality
penry
purposes
courts
distinguish
mental
retardation
dementia
even
though
onset
latter
may
occur
age
eighteen
concurring
judges
nevertheless
concluded
record
contain
sufficient
evidence
support
tennard
penry
claim
concurring
judges
also
rejected
tennard
contention
evidence
iq
alone
requires
published
opinions
texas
courts
uniformly
required
judge
baird
dissented
maintaining
criminal
appeals
consistent
ly
held
wake
penry
evidence
mental
retardation
adequately
considered
within
statutory
special
issues
strayed
precedent
judge
baird
wrote
instead
asking
simply
whether
jury
vehicle
considering
mitigating
evidence
weigh
ed
sufficiency
tennard
mitigating
evidence
judges
overstreet
womack
dissented
without
opinion
tennard
sought
federal
habeas
corpus
relief
district
denied
petition
tennard
johnson
civ
action
july
app
began
observing
vidence
single
low
score
unidentified
intelligence
test
evidence
tennard
mentally
retarded
considered
whether
iq
score
within
effective
reach
jury
ibid
noting
tennard
low
iq
score
concealed
jury
evidence
sides
argued
significance
punishment
concluded
jury
adequate
means
two
special
issues
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
subsequently
denied
tennard
certificate
appealability
coa
civ
action
tex
see
app
appeals
fifth
circuit
full
briefing
oral
argument
issued
opinion
holding
tennard
entitled
coa
penry
claim
debatable
among
jurists
reason
tennard
cockrell
began
stating
test
applied
fifth
circuit
penry
claims
involves
threshold
inquiry
whether
petitioner
presented
constitutionally
relevant
mitigating
evidence
evidence
severe
permanent
handicap
defendant
burdened
fault
evidence
criminal
act
attributable
severe
permanent
condition
held
tennard
entitled
coa
two
reasons
first
held
evidence
low
iq
alone
constitute
uniquely
severe
condition
rejected
tennard
claim
evidence
mental
retardation
low
iq
evidence
introduced
tying
iq
score
retardation
second
held
even
tennard
evidence
mental
retardation
evidence
claim
must
fail
show
crime
committed
attributable
low
iq
judge
dennis
dissented
concluding
texas
application
penry
unreasonable
tennard
entitled
habeas
relief
tennard
filed
petition
certiorari
granted
writ
vacated
judgment
remanded
consideration
light
atkins
virginia
tennard
cockrell
fifth
circuit
took
remand
consideration
substantive
atkins
claim
observed
tennard
never
argued
eighth
amendment
prohibits
execution
reinstated
prior
panel
opinion
granted
certiorari
ii
coa
issue
applicant
made
substantial
showing
denial
constitutional
right
interpreted
require
petitioner
must
demonstrate
reasonable
jurists
find
district
assessment
constitutional
claims
debatable
wrong
slack
mcdaniel
controlling
standard
petitioner
must
reasonable
jurists
debate
whether
matter
agree
petition
resolved
different
manner
issues
presented
adequate
deserve
encouragement
proceed
petitioner
arguments
ultimately
must
assessed
deferential
standard
required
relief
may
granted
unless
state
adjudication
resulted
decision
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
state
never
disputed
tennard
penry
claim
properly
preserved
federal
habeas
review
state
consider
question
merits
note
issue
also
raised
defense
counsel
prior
trial
motion
set
aside
indictment
ground
among
others
texas
capital
murder
statutes
explicitly
allow
consideration
specific
mitigating
circumstances
punishment
phase
prosecution
consequently
violative
accused
right
free
cruel
unusual
punishment
also
void
vagueness
defendant
motion
set
aside
indictment
cause
jud
dist
harris
county
may
despite
paying
lipservice
principles
guiding
issuance
coa
tennard
cockrell
supra
fifth
circuit
analysis
proceeded
along
distinctly
different
track
rather
examining
district
analysis
texas
decision
invoked
restrictive
gloss
penry
reviewing
penry
claim
must
determine
whether
mitigating
evidence
introduced
trial
constitutionally
relevant
beyond
effective
reach
jury
constitutionally
relevant
evidence
must
show
uniquely
severe
permanent
handicap
defendant
burdened
fault
criminal
act
attributable
severe
permanent
condition
quoting
davis
scott
test
constitutional
relevance
characterized
state
oral
argument
threshold
screening
test
tr
oral
appears
applied
uniformly
fifth
circuit
penry
claims
see
bigby
cockrell
robertson
cockrell
en
banc
smith
cockrell
blue
cockrell
davis
scott
finds
certain
mitigating
evidence
constitutionally
relevant
consider
whether
evidence
within
reach
jur
smith
supra
asks
whether
evidence
constitutionally
relevant
consider
whether
within
jury
effective
reach
decision
fifth
circuit
concluded
tennard
precluded
establishing
penry
claim
low
iq
evidence
bore
nexus
crime
move
effective
reach
question
fifth
circuit
test
foundation
decisions
neither
penry
progeny
screened
mitigating
evidence
constitutional
relevance
considering
whether
jury
instructions
comported
eighth
amendment
indeed
mitigating
evidence
presented
penry
concededly
relevant
see
tr
oral
pp
even
limiting
principles
regarding
relevance
suggested
opinion
think
material
holding
addressed
directly
relevance
standard
applicable
mitigating
evidence
capital
cases
mckoy
north
carolina
spoke
expansive
terms
established
meaning
relevance
different
context
mitigating
evidence
introduced
capital
sentencing
proceeding
context
thus
general
evidentiary
standard
tendency
make
existence
fact
consequence
determination
action
probable
less
probable
without
evidence
applies
quoting
new
jersey
quoted
approvingly
dissenting
opinion
state
mitigating
evidence
evidence
tends
logically
prove
disprove
fact
circumstance
reasonably
deem
mitigating
value
quoting
state
mckoy
opinion
exum
thus
state
bar
consideration
evidence
sentencer
reasonably
find
warrants
sentence
less
death
low
threshold
relevance
met
eighth
amendment
requires
jury
able
consider
give
effect
capital
defendant
mitigating
evidence
boyde
california
citing
lockett
ohio
eddings
oklahoma
penry
see
also
payne
tennessee
held
state
preclude
sentencer
considering
relevant
mitigating
evidence
defendant
proffers
support
sentence
less
death
irtually
limits
placed
relevant
mitigating
evidence
capital
defendant
may
introduce
concerning
circumstances
quoting
eddings
supra
fifth
circuit
test
inconsistent
principles
obviously
test
screen
positive
aspect
defendant
character
good
character
traits
neither
handicap
typically
traits
criminal
activity
attributable
skipper
south
carolina
however
made
clear
evidence
evidence
nder
eddings
may
excluded
sentencer
consideration
observed
even
though
petitioner
evidence
good
conduct
jail
relate
specifically
petitioner
culpability
crime
committed
question
evidence
sense
might
serve
basis
sentence
less
death
lockett
supra
citation
omitted
evidence
said
defendant
disposition
make
peaceful
adjustment
life
prison
nature
relevant
sentencing
determination
course
texas
courts
might
reasonably
conclude
evidence
good
conduct
jail
within
jury
effective
reach
via
future
dangerousness
special
issue
see
franklin
lynaugh
plurality
opinion
concurring
judgment
fifth
circuit
test
evidence
screened
time
came
consider
question
tennard
case
fifth
circuit
invoked
uniquely
severe
nexus
elements
test
deny
relief
penry
tennard
cockrell
contrasting
tennard
low
iq
evidence
constitute
uniquely
severe
condition
mental
retardation
severe
permanent
condition
concluding
penry
claims
must
fail
tennard
made
showing
trial
criminal
act
attributable
condition
neither
ground
provided
adequate
reason
fail
reach
heart
tennard
penry
claims
never
denied
gravity
place
relevance
analysis
insofar
evidence
trivial
feature
defendant
character
circumstances
crime
unlikely
tendency
mitigate
defendant
culpability
see
skipper
supra
hold
facets
defendant
ability
adjust
prison
life
must
treated
relevant
potentially
mitigating
example
quarrel
statement
often
defendant
take
shower
irrelevant
sentencing
determination
quoting
state
plath
however
say
features
circumstances
panel
federal
appellate
judges
deems
severe
let
alone
uniquely
severe
tendency
incorrect
rather
question
simply
whether
evidence
character
might
serve
basis
sentence
less
death
skipper
supra
fifth
circuit
likewise
wrong
refused
consider
debatability
penry
question
ground
tennard
adduced
evidence
crime
attributable
low
iq
atkins
virginia
explained
impaired
intellectual
functioning
inherently
mitigating
oday
society
views
mentally
retarded
offenders
categorically
less
culpable
average
criminal
nothing
opinion
suggested
mentally
retarded
individual
must
establish
nexus
mental
capacity
crime
eighth
amendment
prohibition
executing
triggered
equally
countenance
suggestion
low
iq
evidence
relevant
mitigating
evidence
thus
penry
question
need
even
asked
unless
defendant
also
establishes
nexus
crime
state
claims
fifth
circuit
penry
jurisprudence
issue
case
brief
respondent
tr
oral
arg
contrary
jurisprudence
directly
issue
fifth
circuit
denied
tennard
relief
ground
satisfy
requirements
imposed
constitutional
relevance
test
explained
fifth
circuit
screening
test
basis
precedents
indeed
inconsistent
standard
adopted
relevance
capital
sentencing
context
therefore
hold
fifth
circuit
assessed
tennard
penry
claim
improper
legal
standard
cf
cockrell
holding
certiorari
review
denial
coa
fifth
circuit
applied
incorrect
standard
improperly
merging
requirements
two
statutory
sections
turn
analysis
fifth
circuit
conducted
tennard
demonstrate
reasonable
jurists
find
district
assessment
constitutional
claims
debatable
wrong
slack
mcdaniel
conclude
reasonable
jurists
conclude
low
iq
evidence
tennard
presented
relevant
mitigating
evidence
evidence
significantly
impaired
intellectual
functioning
obviously
evidence
might
serve
basis
sentence
less
death
skipper
observing
respect
individual
iq
wiggins
diminished
mental
capacitie
augment
mitigation
case
burger
kemp
noting
petitioner
iq
functioned
level
child
later
light
petitioner
youth
time
offense
testimony
emotional
development
level
several
years
chronological
age
excluded
state
quoting
eddings
reasonable
jurists
also
conclude
texas
criminal
appeals
application
penry
facts
tennard
case
unreasonable
relationship
special
issues
tennard
low
iq
evidence
essential
features
relationship
special
issues
penry
mental
retardation
evidence
impaired
intellectual
functioning
mitigating
dimension
beyond
impact
individual
ability
act
deliberately
see
penry
reasonable
jurist
conclude
jury
might
well
given
tennard
low
iq
evidence
aggravating
effect
considering
future
dangerousness
matter
probable
inference
evidence
also
prosecutor
told
hether
low
iq
really
issue
legislature
asking
address
question
reasons
became
danger
really
relevant
fact
danger
evidence
shows
danger
criteria
use
answering
question
app
indeed
prosecutor
comments
pressed
exactly
problematic
interpretation
special
issues
suggesting
tennard
low
iq
irrelevant
mitigation
relevant
question
whether
posed
future
danger
hold
fifth
circuit
uniquely
severe
permanent
handicap
nexus
tests
incorrect
reject
hold
reasonable
jurists
find
debatable
wrong
district
disposition
tennard
penry
claim
tennard
therefore
entitled
certificate
appealability
judgment
appeals
fifth
circuit
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
robert
james
tennard
petitioner
doug
dretke
director
texas
department
criminal
justice
correctional
institutions
division
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
june
chief
justice
rehnquist
dissenting
certificate
appealability
may
issue
applicant
made
substantial
showing
denial
constitutional
right
district
rejected
constitutional
claims
merits
showing
required
satisfy
straightforward
petitioner
must
demonstrate
reasonable
jurists
find
district
assessment
constitutional
claims
debatable
wrong
slack
mcdaniel
believe
reasonable
jurists
find
district
assessment
constitutional
claims
debatable
wrong
dissent
district
conducted
proper
inquiry
examining
whether
tennard
evidence
low
intelligence
effective
jury
app
quoting
johnson
texas
district
came
correct
result
special
issues
allowed
jury
give
mitigating
effect
tennard
evidence
low
intelligence
graham
collins
jurek
texas
held
texas
special
issues
system
general
matter
constitutional
special
issues
system
guides
jury
consideration
mitigating
evidence
sentencing
stated
although
lockett
ohio
eddings
oklahoma
prevent
state
placing
relevant
mitigating
evidence
effective
reach
sentencer
graham
supra
cases
others
decisional
line
bar
state
guiding
sentencer
consideration
mitigating
evidence
indeed
held
constitutional
requirement
unfettered
sentencing
discretion
jury
free
structure
shape
consideration
mitigating
evidence
effort
achieve
rational
equitable
administration
death
penalty
boyde
california
quoting
franklin
lynaugh
plurality
opinion
johnson
supra
penry
lynaugh
penry
concluded
texas
special
issues
limited
give
effect
penry
mitigating
evidence
mental
retardation
severe
childhood
abuse
noted
penry
effec
sea
change
view
constitutionality
former
texas
death
penalty
statute
graham
supra
tennard
evidence
low
intelligence
simply
present
difficulty
penry
evidence
dispute
tennard
low
intelligence
relevant
mitigating
circumstance
sentencing
jury
must
allowed
consider
mitigating
evidence
see
eddings
oklahoma
sentencer
may
precluded
considering
mitigating
factor
aspect
defendant
character
record
circumstances
emphasis
deleted
quoting
lockett
ohio
constitution
require
jury
able
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
every
conceivable
manner
evidence
may
relevant
johnson
supra
question
case
whether
reasonable
jurists
find
district
assessment
tennard
evidence
low
intelligence
within
effective
reach
jury
via
texas
special
issues
debatable
wrong
concludes
relationship
special
issues
tennard
low
iq
evidence
essential
features
relationship
special
issues
penry
mental
retardation
evidence
ante
disagree
first
special
issue
asked
whether
tennard
caused
death
victim
reasonable
expectation
death
deceased
another
result
ante
criminal
appeals
texas
noted
district
agreed
mitigating
evidence
tennard
low
intelligence
given
effect
jury
deliberateness
special
issue
follow
conclusion
penry
mental
retardation
relevance
penry
moral
culpability
beyond
scope
deliberateness
special
issue
evidence
low
intelligence
relevance
johnson
graham
clear
question
simply
whether
jury
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
special
issues
johnson
supra
rejecting
petitioner
claim
special
instruction
necessary
evidence
youth
relevance
outside
special
issue
framework
graham
supra
eading
penry
petitioner
urges
thereby
holding
defendant
entitled
special
instructions
whenever
offer
mitigating
evidence
arguable
relevance
beyond
special
issues
require
cases
fourth
issue
put
jury
mitigating
evidence
whether
relevant
special
issues
lead
believe
death
penalty
imposed
franklin
lynaugh
plurality
rejected
precisely
contention
finding
irreconcilable
holding
jurek
affirm
conclusion
today
second
special
issue
asked
probability
defendant
commit
criminal
acts
violence
constitute
continuing
threat
society
ante
case
different
penry
expert
medical
testimony
penry
condition
prevented
learning
experience
evidence
presented
given
evidence
jury
concluded
low
intelligence
meant
tennard
slow
learner
proper
instruction
conform
behavior
social
norms
also
concluded
criminal
appeals
texas
noted
tennard
rather
app
conform
behavior
proper
environment
either
case
contrary
penry
evidence
given
mitigating
effect
second
special
issue
short
low
intelligence
mental
retardation
necessarily
create
penry
sword
two
summarily
bracketed
together
think
reasonable
jurists
disagree
district
conclusion
jury
case
ability
give
mitigating
effect
tennard
evidence
low
intelligence
first
second
special
issues
dissent
robert
james
tennard
petitioner
doug
dretke
director
texas
department
criminal
justice
correctional
institutions
division
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
june
justice
scalia
dissenting
petitioner
argues
texas
statutory
special
issues
framework
unconstitutionally
constrained
jury
discretion
give
effect
mitigating
evidence
low
iq
score
violating
requirement
sentencer
must
allowed
give
full
consideration
full
effect
mitigating
circumstances
reply
brief
petitioner
quoting
penry
johnson
penry
ii
turn
quoting
johnson
texas
dissenting
claim
relies
penry
lynaugh
penry
case
applied
principles
earlier
limned
eddings
oklahoma
lockett
ohio
previously
expressed
view
right
unchanneled
sentencer
discretion
basis
constitution
see
penry
supra
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
also
said
decisions
establishing
right
deserve
stare
decisis
effect
requiring
unchanneled
discretion
say
death
rationally
reconciled
prior
decisions
requiring
canalized
discretion
say
yes
practice
furman
georgia
per
curiam
described
discretion
sentence
death
pronounced
constitutionally
prohibited
woodson
north
carolina
plurality
opinion
lockett
renamed
discretion
sentence
death
pronounced
constitutionally
required
walton
arizona
scalia
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
returned
greater
rationality
penry
jurisprudence
cutting
back
graham
collins
johnson
texas
supra
joined
pruning
effort
noting
essence
today
holding
effect
discretion
may
constitutionally
channeled
set
forth
dissent
penry
concurring
opinion
chief
justice
notes
lower
courts
disposition
petitioner
penry
claim
present
case
entirely
appropriate
cases
ante
dissenting
opinion
yet
opinion
even
acknowledge
existence
finds
failings
fifth
circuit
framework
analyzing
penry
claims
jurisprudence
root
problem
simultaneous
pursuit
contradictory
objectives
necessarily
produces
confusion
walton
supra
although
present
case
involves
coa
ruling
rather
ruling
directly
merits
petitioner
claim
require
issuance
coa
insubstantial
right
issue
derives
case
law
long
left
constitution
behind
embraced
contradiction
respectfully
dissent
robert
james
tennard
petitioner
doug
dretke
director
texas
department
criminal
justice
correctional
institutions
division
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
june
justice
thomas
dissenting
petitioner
must
rely
penry
lynaugh
argue
texas
special
issues
framework
unconstitutionally
limited
discretion
sentencing
jury
long
maintained
however
penry
much
violence
many
settled
precedents
area
fundamental
constitutional
law
command
force
stare
decisis
graham
collins
concurring
opinion
therefore
agree
justice
scalia
certificate
appealability
issued
based
upon
insubstantial
right
derive
case
law
long
left
constitution
behind
embraced
contradiction
ante
dissenting
opinion
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
fifth
circuit
stated
majority
criminal
appeals
found
evidence
record
tennard
mentally
retarded
described
however
conclusion
plurality
narrowest
thus
controlling
opinion
point
correctly
described
fifth
circuit
conclud
ing
enough
evidence
mental
retardation
record
support
tennard
claim
emphasis
added
judge
meyers
concurring
opinion