Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey[1] to capital sentencing schemes, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty.

An informant tipped the police off to Timothy Ring and two of his friends, who had recently made expensive purchases such as a new truck.

Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsburg began with an important characterization of Arizona's capital sentencing scheme.

The Sixth Amendment required a jury to find elements but allowed a judge to determine sentencing factors.

If a particular fact, whether it was called an "element" or a "sentencing factor," exposed the defendant to a greater punishment, then the Court said that the Sixth Amendment required a jury to find it.