And it just might prompt Florida to drag itself into the modern world and abolish the death penalty.
Advertisement
“It’s long overdue”, said Deborah Shearer, who opposes the death penalty. The court would later say that its decision was not retroactive – that it did not apply to those Arizona sentences that had already worked their way through the appeals process in 2002. That’s what the U.S. Supreme Court says is unconstitutional. “Juries across the country have become increasingly reluctant to vote in favor of death”. “The court’s ruling thus represents another step on the inevitable road toward ending the death penalty”.
Sotomayor noted that “Any fact that “expose[s] the defendant to a greater punishment than that authorized by the jury’s guilty verdict” is an “element” that must be submitted to a jury”. After a conviction, the jury moves to the sentencing phase of the trial. Lawmakers must revise and clarify death sentence procedures. The jury then issues a recommendation for the judge on what they think is the appropriate sentence. “Florida’s sentencing scheme, which required the judge alone to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance, is therefore unconstitutional”.
Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision calls into question Alabama’s similar death sentencing scheme. All but one of the court’s conservative judges sided with the liberals in finding Florida’s system flawed. The lack of unanimity wasn’t something the Supreme Court chose to address. ‘Time and subsequent cases have washed away the logic of Spaziano and Hildwin. Florida House Speaker Steve Crisafulli, who learned of the ruling while he was giving a speech to open the state’s annual legislative session, said the Supreme Court had “impeccable timing”.
In this case, A Florida jury convicted petitioner Timothy Hurst of first-degree murder for killing a co-worker and recommended the death penalty.
Hurst told two friends that he killed the manager and robbed the store, according to court files. Instead, he argued imposing a death sentence on Hurst by anyone other than a jury violated the Eighth Amendment. “…A judge increased Hurst’s authorized punishment based on her own factfinding”.
“We intend to make every effort to continue and uphold every sentence that’s on appeal”, Eddins said. He was granted a new sentencing hearing in 2012. The resolution said capital punishment is “a legitimate form of punishment for those guilty of murder or treasonous acts that result in death” and called for “vigilance, justice, and equality in the criminal justice system”. The Court held that this difference is immaterial. “None holds water”, said Sotomayor. The Supreme Court ruled January 12, 2016, that Florida’s unique system for sentencing people to death is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to judges and not enough to juries to decide capital sentences.
Lawyers and law professors say Florida’s sentencing is a part of state law.
In the Hurst case, Florida’s solicitor general argued that the system was acceptable because a jury first decides if the defendant is eligible for the death penalty. “What has happened today is, in my opinion, going to basically cause a moratorium on capital cases until the Supreme Court has time to sort this out”.
“We conclude that the record provides sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could convict Marquardt of the first-degree murder of Ruiz and Wells, as well as burglary of a dwelling with a firearm. Nobody should be surprised by this decision by the nation’s highest court”.
Almost 400 prisoners sit on Florida’s Death row.
Advertisement
Sotomayor also rejected “a bevy of arguments” made by the state for why Hurst’s sentence was constitutional.
