In Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004), a defendant was convicted by a jury of capital murder. During the penalty phase of the trial, the defense called a witness who testified that the defendant had a low IQ. Id. at 277. The jury was instructed to consider the appropriate punishment by answering two "special issues" to establish whether a sentence of life imprisonment or death would be imposed. Id. During closing argument, the defense argued that the defendant's low IQ mitigated his culpability. Id. at 277-78. The prosecution said such evidence was irrelevant. Id. at 278. The jury sentenced the defendant to death. Id. On appeal, the defendant argued his low IQ was mitigating and the jury was not properly instructed on how to "consider and give effect to" this evidence in assessing punishment. Id. at 279-80. The Supreme Court agreed with the defendant and reversed and remanded, noting "impaired intellectual functioning is inherently mitigating" and holding that "reasonable jurists could conclude that the low IQ defendant presented was relevant mitigating evidence." Id. at 287-89.