The U.S. Supreme Court case Timothy Stuart Ring v. Arizona in 2001 revolved around the constitutionality of a death sentence handed down by a judge, rather than a jury. Timothy Ring was convicted for murder and conspiracy to commit armed robbery, with his sentencing trial conducted before the same judge who presided over his conviction trial. The judge found aggravating factors that made him eligible for the death penalty under Arizona law and sentenced him accordingly. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, it was ruled that this violated Ring's Sixth Amendment right to have all critical facts decided by a jury beyond reasonable doubt - not just guilt or innocence but also any fact increasing punishment beyond prescribed statutory maximums (Apprendi rule). This landmark decision effectively declared unconstitutional laws in five states where judges alone determined presence of aggravating factors necessary for imposing capital punishment.

In the dissenting opinion for Timothy Stuart Ring v. Arizona, Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas, argued that the Sixth Amendment does not require a jury to find beyond reasonable doubt all facts necessary to impose death penalty. They contended that aggravating factors are sentencing considerations rather than elements of an offense; thus they do not need to be determined by a jury. The dissenters also pointed out that many states had already adopted systems where judges play a significant role in determining whether defendants should receive capital punishment based on their findings about aggravating circumstances. Overturning such practices would cause substantial disruption in these states' criminal justice systems without clear constitutional mandate.