Florida’s method of letting judges, not juries, hand down death sentences ran into major skepticism at the Supreme Court Tuesday and appears unlikely to survive.
Advertisement
Florida can also be the one state through which juries don’t have to succeed in a unanimous verdict to…
Timothy Hurst, 36, described by his lawyers as mentally disabled with “borderline intelligence” and an IQ between 70 and 78, was sentenced to death for the 1998 murder of Cynthia Harrison, a manager at a Popeyes restaurant in Pensacola where he worked.
It likely will take months for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule, but the case could have far-reaching effects if justices find the system unconstitutional.
“Under Florida law, Timothy Hurst will go to his death despite the fact that a judge – not a jury – made the factual finding that rendered him eligible for death”, said Washington lawyer Seth P. Waxman.
If a jury recommends a sentence of death, it does not – and, Waxman pointed out, can not be – directed to specify which aggravating factor it found. As such, a majority of the jury need not even have agreed on which aggravating factor is being used as its rationale for recommending a death sentence.
“Florida, and Florida alone”, Waxman said, has such a “muddle” of responsibilities between a judge and jury.
The judge in Hurst’s trial then conducted a separate factfinding process and handed down the death sentence, rendering the jury’s decision merely advisory.
“Theoretically, this could happen”, Kennedy said.
Only Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito – neither of whom were on the court when Ring was decided in 2002 – appeared comfortable with all of the aspects of Florida’s system.
Winsor argued the system gives defendants a “judicial backstop” in having both jury and judge find at least one aggravating factor warranting a death sentence.
Advertisement
Florida’s solicitor general says the system works because a jury first decides if the defendant is eligible for the death penalty. But later, Scalia suggested jurors might act differently if they knew their determination of aggravating factors was final, and not subject to a judge’s review.
