US Supreme Court rules in favor of Florida death row inmate

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected the final appeals of two Oklahoma death row inmates, but Attorney General Scott Pruitt declined to seek execution dates while the state’s lethal injection process is under review.

He was tried twice, and the jury, though divided, recommended a death sentence, and the judge imposed one.

The case that up-ended Florida’s death penalty statute involved Timothy Lee Hurst, who was convicted of murdering his boss at a Popeye’s restaurant in Pensacola in 1998.

The judge used the jury’s vote to sentence Hurst to death, but the Supreme Court ruled that the recommendation system takes away authority that should rest with jurors alone. Florida argued that its death penalty system should stay because juries decide if people are eligible for the death penalty first.

Stay on topic – This helps keep the thread focused on the discussion at hand. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion (PDF), and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.

In its 8-1 ruling, the country’s highest court said Florida’s sentencing is flawed because judges are given too much power over prisoners’ fates.

But Sotomayor ruled that Hurst was hurt by the state’s system, since the jury never clearly found the aggravating circumstances required for a death sentence.

Florida law also said a jury isn’t required to be unanimous in recommending death. “It is not a surprise that the Supreme Court has declared this unconstitutional”.

The question was whether the sentencing scheme violated Ring v. Arizona (2002), in which the Supreme Court ruled that a capital sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment if it gives the judge, rather than the jury, the authority to determine whether the facts of the case are sufficient to impose the death penalty. “There is no evidence that criminal activity is more heinous in Alabama than in other states or that Alabama juries are particularly lenient”. Mr Hurst’s lawyers argued that the shooter’s low IQ and “borderline intellectual functioning” was a reason not to receive the death penalty. “This isn’t like some Supreme Court decisions that forever bind us to a particular ideology”. Please see our terms of service for more information.