recognizing that “a more sophisticated analysis” may be required on state collateral review in some circumstances
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “a more sophisticated analysis” may be required on state collateral review in some circumstances
- finding that there was no right to a jury trial on an Atkins claim under Ring
- states that have recognized right to jury determination of mental retardation generally have done so by statute; Danforth-based claim that state court might provide more protection than federal courts waived
- observing that procedural rules “cannot trump a Sixth Amendment right to a jury”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice SAYLOR,
concurring.
I join the well-reasoned majority opinion in the landscape of Pennsylvania law as it now exists. I merely note that, left to my own devices, I would treat the present category of claims of death ineligibility under traditional principles of state habeas corpus law, for the reasons stated in my dissent in Com *491 monwealth v. Steele, 599 Pa. 341, 434-35 , 961 A.2d 786, 842 (2008) (Saylor, J., dissenting).