#SCOTUSblog RSS Feed SCOTUSblog Atom Feed Relist Watch – OT2015 Edition This week at the Court ____________________ Go * [5-5-14_home_blue.png] * [5-5-14_mertiscases_blue.png] + October Term 2015 + October Term 2014 + October Term 2013 + October Term 2012 + October Term 2011 + October Term 2010 + Term Archive * [5-5-14_petitions_blue.png] * [5-5-14_stats_blue.png] * [5-5-14_specialfeatures_blue.png] + Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole symposium + Zubik v. Burwell symposium + Fisher II symposium + Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association + One person, one vote and Evenwel + More * [5-5-14_plainenglish_blue.png] * [5-5-14_videos_blue.png] * [5-5-14_resources_blue.png] * [5-5-14_admin_blue.png] Search Blog or Docke Blog Docket [lyle-denniston.jpg] Lyle Denniston Independent Contractor Reporter Posted Sat, October 10th, 2015 12:09 am Bio & Post Archive » Argument preview: Defining the jury’s role on death penalty Posted Sat, October 10th, 2015 12:09 am by Lyle Denniston Analysis For years, the Supreme Court has been engaged in an energetic effort to enhance the role of the jury in criminal courts. No part of that has been more actively pursued than deepening the jury’s involvement in sentencing — a part of the process long dominated by trial judges. A new case from Florida, set for argument at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, provides a new test. Florida is the last state to hold out against a common requirement that jurors must be unanimous in both specifying why a convicted individual is eligible for a death sentence and recommending a sentence. Juries in Florida death penalty cases have only an advisory role to begin with, and even that influence on the judge is potentially lessened by the lack of unanimity and by the judge’s authority to make the key decisions anyway. The Court is examining the case of a brutal slaying at a Popeye’s fast-food restaurant in Pensacola, Fla. (Hurst v. Florida), to determine how far a state may go to assign the important decisions on death sentencing to the judge. The Justices attempted to curb that role, and give more of it to the jury, in a 2002 decision but the Florida Supreme Court has essentially exempted the state’s capital punishment process from that ruling. In Ring v. Arizona thirteen years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that a judge may not make the factual findings about “aggravating factors” — the seriousness of the crime that can make an individual eligible to be sentenced to death — because that role under the Sixth Amendment belongs to the jury. The Court has said repeatedly that, if a potential sentence is to be made more severe, the enhancement must be based upon the jury’s findings. The Court, however, has never ruled that juries must be used in the sentencing phases of a case in which a death sentence is a possibility, and it has never ruled that a jury recommendation of a death sentence must be by a unanimous vote. It has allowed guilty verdicts by less than unanimous votes in cases involving lesser crimes. The case set for a hearing next Tuesday could provide new interpretations on both of those issues. The Hurst case involves Timothy Lee Hurst of Pensacola, who was nineteen years old when he was accused of murdering a co-worker at a restaurant there in 1998. His lawyers claimed that he had a history of mental disability, and the jury in his case found that he had no prior crimes on his record, and that his age was a factor in his favor. He wound up with a death sentence, however, after the jury proposed it by a vote of seven to five. Under Florida’s capital punishment law, a death sentence may be imposed if there is at least one “aggravating factor” in the case; if there is none, the maximum penalty can only be life in prison. Florida law splits up the roles on death sentencing between the jury and the judge. The jury’s advisory role is to ultimately recommend a sentence to the judge. To do that, the jury weighs aggravating and mitigating factors and decides whether to recommend a death sentence. It can make that final recommendation on a split vote — it must be at least seven to five, as it was in Hurst’s case. But there is no need for even a majority of jurors to agree on even one of the aggravating factors the jurors as a group had apparently indicated did exist. The sentencing duty then shifts to the judge, who does the same weighing process of the two kinds of factors; in doing so, the judge is not bound by what the jury concluded. The judge then decides for or against a death sentence, again with no duty to follow the jury’s recommendation. The Florida Supreme Court, upholding that process as used in Hurst’s case, found no constitutional problem with the role of either the jury or the judge. The state court divided four to three, with the dissenting justices arguing that the Florida approach violates both the Sixth and Eighth Amendments and deviates from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ring v. Arizona. Hurst’s lawyers took the case on to the Supreme Court, raising two multi-faceted questions, with most of them focusing on the split role of judge and jury. The Court granted review in March, rephrasing the issue to be whether the Florida scheme violates either the Sixth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment “in light of this Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona.” The order did not specify whether it would consider Hurst’s argument that he also had a claim of mishandling in his trial of a mental disability claim, but the Court did not appear to have accepted that for review and it has dropped out of the case. Hurst’s brief on the merits largely separates the arguments between the Sixth Amendment, claiming that provision is violated by the jury’s limited role in finding whether Hurst was eligible for a death sentence, and the Eighth Amendment, claiming that provision is violated by allowing the judge to impose the sentence after a split verdict by the jury. However, he also levels a separate Sixth Amendment challenge to the judge’s role in imposing a death penalty. Although his brief argued at length on the jury role in assessing the aggravating factors, there is language in the brief suggesting that his lawyers do not regard that as the main focus of his case. If the Court were to find that the jury has an adequate role in sorting out eligibility for a death sentence, the brief contended, the Court should at least strike down his death sentence because Florida minimizes the role of the jury as the moral representative of the community in determining what penalty was appropriate, and because allowing a recommendation of death by no more than seven votes makes it impossible to know what the jury actually thought about punishment. Noting that there is uniformity among the other forty-nine states and the federal government in requiring a unanimous verdict as the norm, the brief said that the split-vote approach “disregards the bedrock principle that the jury system is predicated on meaningful deliberations, which a simple-majority vote cannot safeguard.” Florida’s brief on the merits noted that the Supreme Court has examined its capital punishment scheme at least four times before and has not found it to be flawed under the Constitution. The state also insisted that Hurst’s lawyers had exaggerated what is required under Ring v. Arizona. That decision, it contended, only mandates a role for the jury in the death-eligibility analysis, and does not insist that it have a role in the actual selection of the sentence to be imposed. As long ago as 1972, the state’s filing said, the Supreme Court indicated that jury unanimity is not required in criminal cases. In fact, the state contended, the Court has never ruled that a state must use a jury in any part of the sentencing process. Turning back to the record of this case in lower courts, the state said that Hurst’s lawyers actually conceded that the evidence in the case made him eligible for a death sentence; thus, it argued, his lawyers have waived any argument they might seek to make about the inadequacy of the jury’s role in the death-eligibility phase. Hurst has the support of amicus briefs from civil rights groups, former judges on the Florida Supreme Court and on lower state courts, and the American Bar Association. Amici support for Florida came from Alabama and Montana. At Tuesday’s hearing, Hurst will be represented by Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D.C., attorney and former U.S. Solicitor General. Arguing for Florida will be Allen Winsor, the state’s solicitor general. Each will have thirty minutes of time. . Posted in Hurst v. Florida, Analysis, Featured, Merits Cases Recommended Citation: Lyle Denniston, Argument preview: Defining the jury’s role on death penalty, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 10, 2015, 12:09 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/10/argument-preview-defining-the-jurys-r ole-on-death-penalty/ Share: * Featured Posts Argument analysis: Puerto Rico -- special no more? – Lyle Denniston Argument analysis: Flirting with congressional supremacy – Lyle Denniston Argument analysis: Will defendant lose the battle but win the war in sentencing case? – Douglas Berman * Merits Case Pages and Archives [This Term's Merits Cases__________________________________________ ___________.......] Archives [Month....] or [Category.........................] View Term Snapshot * This Week at the Court The Court issued additional orders from the January 8 Conference on Monday. On Tuesday the Court released its opinions in Hurst v. Florida and Bruce v. Samuels. The Court also heard oral arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. The calendar for the January sitting is available here. On Friday the Justices will meet for their January 15 Conference; our list of "petitions to watch" for that Conference is available here. * Major Cases + Zubik v. Burwell Does the availability of a regulatory method for nonprofit religious employers to comply with the HHS contraceptive mandate eliminate the substantial burden on religious exercise in violation of RFRA that the Court recognized in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.? + Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health - or any other valid interest. + Evenwel v. Abbott Does the "one-person, one-vote" principle require states to use voter population, as opposed to total population, when drawing state legislative districts? + Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association Are public-sector "agency shop" agreements unconstitutional under the First Amendment? + Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin Does the use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions by the University of Texas violate the Equal Protection Clause? + Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute. see all this Term’s cases » * Upcoming Petitions Conference of January 15 + United States v. Texas (1) Whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action; (2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law; and (3) whether the guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures. + V.L. v. E.L. Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause permits a court to deny recognition to an adoption judgment previously issued by a court from a sister state, based on the forum court’s de novo determination that the issuing court erred in applying its own state’s adoption law. + Sissel v. Dep’t of Health & Human Services (1) Whether the Affordable Care Act’s tax on going without health insurance is a “Bill[] for raising Revenue” to which the Origination Clause applies; and (2) whether the Senate's gut-and-replace procedure was a constitutionally valid “amend [ment]” pursuant to the Origination Clause. More Petitions » * Recent Special Features + Whole Woman's Health v. Cole symposium + Zubik v. Burwell symposium + Fisher II symposium + Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association + One person, one vote and Evenwel * Statistical Snapshot Cases argued 34 Cases decided 5 Summary reversals 3 Merits Cases Set for Argument 69 see all » * Twitter Feed Tweets by @SCOTUSblog * Calendar: January 2016 Full Calendar [email12x12.png] Submit Event Jan. 2016 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 Holiday 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Conference 9 10 11 Orders FRIEDRICHS V. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOC. (14-915) 12 MOLINA-MARTINEZ V. UNITED STATES (14-8913) DUNCAN V. OWENS (14-1516) 13 BANK MARKAZI V. PETERSON (14-770) PUERTO RICO V. SANCHEZ VALLE (15-108) 14 15 Conference 16 17 18 Holiday 19 Orders HEFFERNAN V. CITY OF PATERSON (14-1280) AMERICOLD LOGISTICS V. CONAGRA FOODS (14-1382) 20 NEBRASKA V. PARKER (14-1406) STURGEON V. MASICA (14-1209) 21 22 Conference 23 24 25 Orders 26 27 28 29 30 31 + Orders/Opinions + Arguments + Conferences + Events + Holidays + Multiple * Videos see all Justice Breyer with the CUNY School of Law’s Sorensen Center for International Peace and Justice Screen Shot 2016-01-14 at 10.25.16 AM On December 17, Justice Stephen Breyer spoke about global interdependence and his new book, The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities, with the CUNY School of Law’s Sorensen Center for International Peace and Justice. Awards * Peabody Award Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media. Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media. * Sigma Delta Chi Sigma Delta Chi Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision. * National Press Club Award National Press Club Award Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision. * Silver Gavel Award Silver Gavel Award Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system. * American Gavel Award American Gavel Award Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system. * Webby Award Webby Award Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet. * Email Digest Sign-Up Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email _______________ Go © 2016 SCOTUSblog (click for license) Switch to desktop site © 2016 SCOTUSblog (click for license) This work by SCOTUSblog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Switch to mobile site Quantcast