Category: Jury Trials

Major Death Penalty Decision in McKinney

by · Feb 25, 2020 11:33 am

Today the U.S. Supreme Court decided two major issues in capital litigation in McKinney v. Arizona. The Court affirmed that the jury trial requirement of Ring v. Arizona applies only to the finding of an aggravating circumstance that makes a defendant eligible for the death penalty, not to the weighing process or the final sentencing decision.

The Court also reaffirmed that a state appellate court may fix a problem at trial regarding the aggravating and mitigating circumstances by reweighing them itself, rather than sending the case back for a new sentencing hearing.

Continue reading . . .

Florida Supreme Court Corrects Major Error in Capital Sentencing Law

by · Jan 23, 2020 10:06 pm

In 2016, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court made a major error in the law of jury trial and capital sentencing, running roughshod over decades of precedent. That case was Hurst v. State, 202 So.2d 40 (Fla. 2016), on remand from Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016). Today, in State v. Poole, No. SC18-245, the state high court backs off from its Hurst opinion to the extent that it goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court required.

The framework for capital sentencing established by the Supreme Court in its 1976 and later decisions requires two additional steps before a convicted murderer can be sentenced to death. First, a fact-based “eligibility” finding must be made that at least one fact has been proved from a statutory list of factors beyond the basic elements of murder. Second, in the “selection” step, there must be a discretionary judgment that this is a case suitable for the death penalty, after considering mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Hurst and the 2002 case of Ring v. Arizona require a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the eligibility step and only for the eligibility step. Continue reading . . .