Tennard v. Dretke

This article uses bare URLs, which are uninformative and vulnerable to link rot. Please consider converting them to full citations to ensure the article remains verifiable and maintains a consistent citation style. Several templates and tools are available to assist in formatting, such as reFill (documentation) and Citation bot (documentation). (September 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Tennard v. Dretke
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 22, 2004 Decided June 24, 2004
Full case name	Robert James Tennard v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Citations	542 U.S. 274 (more) 124 S. Ct. 2562; 159 L. Ed. 2d 384; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4575; 72 U.S.L.W. 4540; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 420
Case history
Prior	Texas trial court sentenced Tennard to death; decision affirmed on appeal; decision affirmed again by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; habeas corpus petition denied, Civ. Action No. H-98-4238 (S.D. Tex. July 25, 2000), App. 121; Fifth Circuit affirmed, Tennard v. Cockrell, 284 F.3d 591 (2002); U.S. Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration, 537 U.S. 802 (2002); Fifth Circuit reinstated, 317 F.3d 476 (2003), cert. granted, 540 U.S. 945 (2003).
Holding
A certificate of appealability should issue where "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong."
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 Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent	Rehnquist
Dissent	Scalia
Dissent	Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VIII

Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court was asked whether evidence of the defendant's low IQ in a death penalty trial had been adequately presented to the jury for full consideration in the penalty phase of his trial.^[1] The Supreme Court held that not considering a defendant's low IQ would breach his Eighth Amendment rights and constitute a cruel and unusual punishment.^[1]