Ruling puts fate of Florida death row inmates in question

“Our statute is different and it’s not doing the things unconstitutional (in Florida) which is essentially making the jury’s determination (void) if the judge wanted to”. “What I think about when I’m involved in that is the victim”. Although the jury provides the verdict, it does not give the factual basis for its sentencing recommendation, instead, the judge is tasked with providing the legal justification for a death sentence.

Much of the reasoning in the Hurst v. Florida case comes from the court’s ruling in Ring v. Arizona back in 2002.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion, stating “The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death”.

Radelet, who has studied Florida’s death penalty system, said the number of defendants sentenced to death has fallen gradually since the 1990s, a shift he attributed in part to the practice’s declining popularity nationwide.

The Villages Daily Sun newspaper in central Florida recently collected and analyzed data demonstrating how the lack of unanimous juries has helped fill the state’s death row. After the jury’s recommendation, the judge was required to hold a distinct hearing to evaluate whether the aggravating circumstances were sufficient to merit the death penalty. “A jury’s mere recommendation is not enough”, said the Supreme Court, according to its decision written by Justice Sonia Sontamayor.

Florida’s American Civil Liberties Union is calling on state officials to re-examine the sentences of all death row inmates.

Justice Sam Alito was the lone dissenter in the ruling. Now the Florida Supreme Court said it will consider arguments for how the new ruling affects his case.

The ruling invalidated a system that has allowed judges, rather than juries, to specify the aggravating factors that determine a defendant’s eligibility for execution.

The 8-1 decision coincided with the opening day of the 2016 legislative session, sending Republican lawmakers scrambling to address what could have far-reaching implications on death penalty cases throughout the state. If the ruling is applied retroactively, that could result in hundreds of new sentencing hearings, extending an already lengthy appeals process.

The attorney general’s office is reviewing the U.S. Supreme Court decision, he added.

News of the high court’s decision stunned Florida legislators. In interviews on Wednesday, legal experts said that regardless of the precise language that emerges from Tallahassee, there’s little doubt Florida will have to transfer power from judges to juries, shouldering ordinary citizens with a grave duty.

“The idea that somebody else may correct the sentence if you get it wrong – that does tend to lessen your sense of responsibility and it therefore makes you more likely to vote for death, even if you may not really be that convinced the person should get death”, Tabak said. His counterpart in the Senate, meanwhile, has no plans to pursue any type of death penalty reform. Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange issued a statement saying the Florida ruling does not affect Alabama law.

“This shows that the Supreme Court continues to apply close scrutiny to the death penalty”, said Cassandra Stubbs, director of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project, to CNN of the initial decision.