Florida Supreme Court questions state's new death penalty law
The Florida Supreme Court questioned on Thursday whether the new death penalty law passed by the Legislature earlier this year cements sentences for the 390 people sitting on death row, or whether they should be given life.
Florida Supreme Court justices Barbara Pariente, James E.C. Perry and Peggy Quince pulled apart the construction of the law hurriedly passed by state lawmakers after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the previous law on Jan. 12, the first day of legislative session. The justices wondered if the new law could be applied to inmates already on death row.
Pariente said she was particularly concerned the new law may violate the Eighth Amendment.
"If we want a death penalty in Florida, it's got to be constitutional," Pariente said. "It's got to be narrow."
The state's high court took up the issue during oral arguments over the death penalty case of Timothy Lee Hurst, which led the nation's high court to reject the former law. A majority of the federal justices ruled Florida's death penalty law gave judges too much power and violated the U.S. Constitution. The new law requires juries to agree unanimously to circumstances that warrant a death penalty sentence, and the panel must agree in a supermajority to the death penalty sentence itself.
Hurst was convicted of murdering a co-worker at a fast-food restaurant in Pensacola in 1998. His defense attorney, David Davis, argued before the state Supreme Court that Hurst should get life because the previous sentencing system was defective.
Assistant Florida Attorney General Carine Mitz said that Hurst should still face the death penalty because the error found by nation's highest court was within the mechanics of the law itself and not the actual case.
Attorneys from around the state filed friend-of-the-court briefs with the Hurst case that called for all death row inmates to receive reduced sentences. The justices grappled with ways to apply the new law to old cases when the Legislature only applied it to prospective ones. Perry said the same process the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional with the state's previous death penalty law — placing so much sentencing power into the hands of judges — may be the only remedy for appellate judges over the 390 existing cases.
One of the attorneys who helped filed the briefs ancillary to the Hurst case was Sonya Rudenstine, of Gainesville, who said she was heartened to see the justices take the issue so seriously. Balancing constitutionality with the state's desire to carry out death penalty sentences would be difficult, Rudenstine said.
"The only other solution will lead to years and years of litigation," Rudenstine said.
Gov. Rick Scott signed the new death penalty law in March. The Senate version of the bill wanted unanimous jury recommendations on both the aggravating circumstances that made the death penalty eligible and the sentence itself. The supermajority rule written into the law was a compromise with House lawmakers who wanted a less overwhelming jury vote.
Senate Democratic Leader Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, said she preferred the unanimous jury recommendations on both the aggravating circumstances and the actual death penalty sentence. She had predicted after the Senate passed the bill that it would face future court challenges.
"I could see why Justice Pariente was concerned because it doesn't make sense not to have it unanimous," Joyner said. "But they wanted their death penalty and I thought it was better than what we had."
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said earlier this year that there were 43 death penalty cases that are now eligible for life. Those cases have not yet been heard by the state Supreme Court.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/state...378289721.html
Bookmarks