| Litigants: | Maynard v. Howell |
| Arguedate: | April 19 |
| Argueyear: | 1988 |
| Decidedate: | June 6 |
| Decideyear: | 1988 |
| Fullname: | Maynard v. Cartwright |
| Usvol: | 486 |
| Uspage: | 356 |
| Parallelcitations: | 108 S. Ct. 1853; 100 L. Ed. 2d 372; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2486 |
| Prior: | Cartwright v. Maynard, 802 F.2d 1203 (10th Cir. 1986); on rehearing en banc, 822 F.2d 1477 (10th Cir. 1987); cert. granted, . |
| Holding: | Oklahoma's statutory characterization of aggravating circumstances as "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" is unconstitutionally vague under the Eighth Amendment; the proper analysis focuses on whether the challenged aggravating circumstance adequately informs the jury as to what it must find in order to impose the death penalty, or whether it leaves the jury with unchanneled discretion to make an arbitrary and capricious decision. |
| Majority: | White |
| Joinmajority: | unanimous |
| Concurrence: | Brennan |
| Joinconcurrence: | Marshall |
| Lawsapplied: | U.S. Const. amend. VIII |
Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court found that the "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel" standard for the application of the death penalty as defined by the Eighth Amendment was too vague.[1] As such, Oklahoma's law was overturned based on Furman v. Georgia (1972).
Justice Brennan announced in a concurrence, joined by Justice Marshall, that he would adhere to his view that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.[2]