Lockhart v. Fretwell
In this article, we are going to delve into the fascinating world of Lockhart v. Fretwell. From its origins to its influence on today's society, we will explore all the relevant aspects related to this topic. Over the next few lines, we will analyze its impact in different areas, its evolution over time, as well as its possible implications in the future. We will address both its positive and negative aspects, with the goal of giving the reader a more complete and balanced understanding of Lockhart v. Fretwell. Join us on this tour and discover everything there is to know about this fascinating topic.
| Lockhart v. Fretwell | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 3, 1992 Decided January 25, 1993 | |
| Full case name | Lockhart, Director, Arkansas Department of Corrections v. Fretwell |
| Citations | 506 U.S. 364 (more) 113 S. Ct. 838; 122 L. Ed. 2d 180 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Fretwell v. Lockhart, 739 F. Supp. 1334 (E.D. Ark. 1990); affirmed in part, 946 F.2d 571 (8th Cir. 1991); cert. granted, 504 U.S. 908 (1992). |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas |
| Concurrence | O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Blackmun |
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court which held that failure to make an objection under Collins v. Lockhart did not constitute undue prejudice required by Strickland v. Washington, because the error did not cause a fundamentally unfair trial, as opposed to merely a different outcome of the case.
Facts
An Arkansas Jury convicted Fretwell of Capital Murder, and sentenced him to the death penalty. In April 1985, Fretwell entered the home of the victim, stole the victim's money, and shot the victim in the head. Subsequently, the jury was asked in the penalty phase to determine two aggravating circumstances. The first of these was whether or not Fretwell committed the homicide for the purpose of avoiding or preventing arrest. The second was whether or not Fretwell committed the homicide for pecuniary gain. The jury subsequently found only the second aggravating factor, and found no mitigating factors. Fretwell's attorney failed to object to the submission of the second of these aggravating factors to the jury, despite the ruling of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Collins v. Lockhart, which held that whether or not a defendant commits a homicide for pecuniary gain was unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States in the setting of homicide committed in the context of a robbery.
References
External links
- Text of is available from: Cornell CourtListener Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
