Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989)
E576851
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Eighth Amendment did not categorically bar the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities, a stance later reversed by Atkins v. Virginia.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Penry v. Lynaugh | 1 |
| Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T6224967 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) Context triple: [opinion in Atkins v. Virginia, overruledPrecedentCitation, Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989)]
-
A.
Betts v. Brady
Betts v. Brady was a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held indigent defendants in state criminal cases were not automatically entitled to court-appointed counsel, a rule later overturned by Gideon v. Wainwright.
-
B.
Skinner v. Oklahoma
Skinner v. Oklahoma is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state law mandating the sterilization of certain criminal offenders, recognizing procreation as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause.
-
C.
New York v. Quarles
New York v. Quarles is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement, allowing certain unwarned statements to be admitted when needed to protect public safety.
-
D.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
E.
Lockett v. Ohio
Lockett v. Ohio is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded the range of mitigating factors a sentencer must be allowed to consider before imposing the death penalty.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) Target entity description: Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Eighth Amendment did not categorically bar the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities, a stance later reversed by Atkins v. Virginia.
-
A.
Betts v. Brady
Betts v. Brady was a 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held indigent defendants in state criminal cases were not automatically entitled to court-appointed counsel, a rule later overturned by Gideon v. Wainwright.
-
B.
Skinner v. Oklahoma
Skinner v. Oklahoma is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a state law mandating the sterilization of certain criminal offenders, recognizing procreation as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause.
-
C.
New York v. Quarles
New York v. Quarles is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision that created the "public safety" exception to the Miranda warning requirement, allowing certain unwarned statements to be admitted when needed to protect public safety.
-
D.
Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
-
E.
Lockett v. Ohio
Lockett v. Ohio is a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly expanded the range of mitigating factors a sentencer must be allowed to consider before imposing the death penalty.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (45)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal law case ⓘ death penalty case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
capital punishment
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ criminal procedure ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1988-10-11 ⓘ |
| citation | 492 U.S. 302 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1989-06-26 ⓘ |
| dissentingJustices |
Harry A. Blackmun
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 87-6177 ⓘ |
| holding |
Texas’s special-issue capital sentencing scheme did not allow the jury to give full mitigating effect to evidence of Penry’s intellectual disability and childhood abuse
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
The Eighth Amendment does not categorically prohibit the execution of persons with intellectual disabilities ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ Harry A. Blackmun NERFINISHED ⓘ John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Thurgood Marshall NERFINISHED ⓘ William H. Rehnquist NERFINISHED ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Texas NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| languageOfOpinion | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Whether Texas’s capital sentencing instructions permitted adequate consideration of mitigating evidence
ⓘ
Whether execution of a person with intellectual disability violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| petitioner | Johnny Paul Penry NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| rearguedDate | 1989-03-27 ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondent | James A. Lynaugh NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondentOffice | Director, Texas Department of Corrections NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result | Judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part ⓘ |
| subsequentHistory | Position on categorical execution of persons with intellectual disabilities overruled by Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) ⓘ |
| topic |
intellectual disability and the death penalty
ⓘ
mitigating evidence in capital sentencing ⓘ |
| vote |
5–4 on the adequacy of Texas’s sentencing instructions
ⓘ
6–3 on the Eighth Amendment categorical bar question ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) Description of subject: Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Eighth Amendment did not categorically bar the execution of individuals with intellectual disabilities, a stance later reversed by Atkins v. Virginia.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
opinion in Atkins v. Virginia
→
overruledPrecedentCitation
→
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989)
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
Penry v. Lynaugh