Legal Case Brief: Court Case Study
Danielle Waldner
December 7, 2015
Professor Custis
Case Brief
MAYNARD, WARDEN, ET AL. v. CARTWRIGHT, 486 US 356. June 6, 1988
Facts: The evening of May 4, 1982, Charma and Hugh Riddle were in their living room watching television. Mrs. Riddle proceeded to leave the room to go to the bathroom, but was surprised to find “respondent Cartwright” in the hallway with a shotgun in his hands (1). Charma Riddle fought with Cartwright for the gun, but Cartwright was able to shoot Mrs. Riddle twice in the legs. Apparently Mrs. Riddle was familiar with Cartwright as he was a “disgruntled ex-employee” of the couple (1). Cartwright then went on to the living room where Hugh Riddle was and shot and killed him. While Cartwright was tending to Mr. Riddle, Mrs. …show more content…
The courts looked at all of the evidence that was presented throughout the trials and it was not until the end in which they decided how to weigh the different pieces of evidence compared to the circumstances. When the first trial occurred the jury was unable to understand how to weigh the evidence over the circumstances that they had thought meant for a reasonable punishment of the death penalty. Cartwright filed numerous appeals, many were denied, but he was finally able for a court to see the vagueness behind the law of what actually makes the circumstance showing how horrible and gruesome a crime truly is and felt that his was nothing of the sort. He was found guilty of first degree murder for the death of Hugh Riddle, but felt that his crime was not anything that was as brutal as the circumstance and the jury claimed the crime to actually be. The courts felt that his crime was so gruesome that it should result in his death; however, through the appeals process that Cartwright took other courts were able to see that the second circumstance that made it reasonable to deserve the death penalty was vaguely unconstitutional thus overturning the previous sentencing of the death penalty for Cartwright. Through reading the case it took many routes to for Cartwright to be able to get his sentence overturned from the death penalty to just life in prison for first degree murder. The Supreme Court found that the circumstance of “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” was too unclear for them to be able to say that the punishment of death was reasonable and thus ending in an overturn of the sentencing. The Supreme Court used the ruling from the case “Furman v. Georgia” which the Supreme Court wanted consistency on what the
December 7, 2015
Professor Custis
Case Brief
MAYNARD, WARDEN, ET AL. v. CARTWRIGHT, 486 US 356. June 6, 1988
Facts: The evening of May 4, 1982, Charma and Hugh Riddle were in their living room watching television. Mrs. Riddle proceeded to leave the room to go to the bathroom, but was surprised to find “respondent Cartwright” in the hallway with a shotgun in his hands (1). Charma Riddle fought with Cartwright for the gun, but Cartwright was able to shoot Mrs. Riddle twice in the legs. Apparently Mrs. Riddle was familiar with Cartwright as he was a “disgruntled ex-employee” of the couple (1). Cartwright then went on to the living room where Hugh Riddle was and shot and killed him. While Cartwright was tending to Mr. Riddle, Mrs. …show more content…
The courts looked at all of the evidence that was presented throughout the trials and it was not until the end in which they decided how to weigh the different pieces of evidence compared to the circumstances. When the first trial occurred the jury was unable to understand how to weigh the evidence over the circumstances that they had thought meant for a reasonable punishment of the death penalty. Cartwright filed numerous appeals, many were denied, but he was finally able for a court to see the vagueness behind the law of what actually makes the circumstance showing how horrible and gruesome a crime truly is and felt that his was nothing of the sort. He was found guilty of first degree murder for the death of Hugh Riddle, but felt that his crime was not anything that was as brutal as the circumstance and the jury claimed the crime to actually be. The courts felt that his crime was so gruesome that it should result in his death; however, through the appeals process that Cartwright took other courts were able to see that the second circumstance that made it reasonable to deserve the death penalty was vaguely unconstitutional thus overturning the previous sentencing of the death penalty for Cartwright. Through reading the case it took many routes to for Cartwright to be able to get his sentence overturned from the death penalty to just life in prison for first degree murder. The Supreme Court found that the circumstance of “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” was too unclear for them to be able to say that the punishment of death was reasonable and thus ending in an overturn of the sentencing. The Supreme Court used the ruling from the case “Furman v. Georgia” which the Supreme Court wanted consistency on what the