Abstract

The role of the jury as the arbiter of facts and the judge as the interpreter of law has been an established legal principle since the 17th century. The constitutional right to a trial by jury is understood to "guard against a spirit of oppression and tyranny on the part of rulers... [and] as the great bulwark of civil and political liberties." This Sixth Amendment right requires that "the truth of every accusation . . . be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of [the defendant's] equals and neighbors."  Though this broad principle has long been established, its practical implications became the subject of the landmark United States Supreme Court decision in Ring v. Arizona.

Following a conviction of first-degree murder, Arizona's questioned capital-sentencing statute required a judge to conduct a sentencing hearing to make the factual determinations required to impose a sentence of death. A judge determined the existence of "aggravating" and "mitigating" circumstances based on evidence offered by the prosecution and defense. The judge alone was charged with making "all factual determinations required by this section." If one or more aggravating circumstances were present, the judge must then consider whether any mitigating circumstances were sufficient to merit leniency. If not, a sentence of death should be imposed.

How to Cite