Skipper v. South Carolina
United States Supreme Court case
Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the rule from Lockett v. Ohio (1978) dictated that mitigating evidence not be subject to limitations based on relevance.
Background
Ronald DeRay Skipper was convicted of capital murder and rape in South Carolina. During the penalty phase of his bifurcated trial, as required by Gregg v. Georgia (1976), Skipper sought to introduce as mitigating evidence that he had "adjusted well" to his pre-trial incarceration. The trial court ruled the evidence irrelevant, in keeping with controlling South Carolina caselaw, excluded the evidence. Skipper was subsequently sentenced to death.
Holding
The Court held that, under Lockett, the exclusion of mitigating evidence on relevance grounds, as articulated by the South Carolina Supreme Court, violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and vacated the sentence.
See also
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 476
External links
Text of Skipper v.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Skipper v. South Carolina” as united States Supreme Court case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as united States Supreme Court case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q19881748. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1986, 1978 and 1976.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Skipper v. South Carolina”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Skipper v. South Carolina primary sources, Skipper v. South Carolina archive and Skipper research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Skipper v. South Carolina”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Skipper v. South Carolina” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.