Texas’s special-issues capital sentencing scheme did not allow the jury to give full mitigating effect to evidence of Penry’s intellectual disability and childhood abuse

Target entity: Texas’s special-issues capital sentencing scheme did not allow the jury to give full mitigating effect to evidence of Penry’s intellectual disability and childhood abuse
Context triple: [Penry v. Lynaugh, holding, Texas’s special-issues capital sentencing scheme did not allow the jury to give full mitigating effect to evidence of Penry’s intellectual disability and childhood abuse]

• A. Aguilar v. Texas
  Aguilar v. Texas is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established a two-pronged test for evaluating the sufficiency of informants’ tips in supporting probable cause for search warrants.
• B. Miller v. Alabama
  Miller v. Alabama is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
• C. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (in part)
  The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles is a state agency responsible for making parole and clemency decisions for offenders in the Texas criminal justice system.
• D. Jurek v. Texas
  Jurek v. Texas is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of Texas’s capital sentencing scheme and helped define the modern framework for death penalty procedures under the Eighth Amendment.
• E. Moore v. Texas
  Moore v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the standards for determining intellectual disability in capital cases, reinforcing constitutional limits on executing individuals with such disabilities.
• F. None of above. chosen
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Target entity: Texas’s special-issues capital sentencing scheme did not allow the jury to give full mitigating effect to evidence of Penry’s intellectual disability and childhood abuse
Target entity description: Penry v. Lynaugh is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision addressing the constitutionality of imposing the death penalty on a defendant with intellectual disability and the adequacy of Texas’s capital sentencing procedures for considering mitigating evidence.

• A. Aguilar v. Texas
  Aguilar v. Texas is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established a two-pronged test for evaluating the sufficiency of informants’ tips in supporting probable cause for search warrants.
• B. Miller v. Alabama
  Miller v. Alabama is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
• C. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (in part)
  The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles is a state agency responsible for making parole and clemency decisions for offenders in the Texas criminal justice system.
• D. Jurek v. Texas
  Jurek v. Texas is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of Texas’s capital sentencing scheme and helped define the modern framework for death penalty procedures under the Eighth Amendment.
• E. Moore v. Texas
  Moore v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case that refined the standards for determining intellectual disability in capital cases, reinforcing constitutional limits on executing individuals with such disabilities.
• F. None of above. chosen