Florida Supreme Court Rules Intellectual Disability Decision Applies Retroactively

The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that death-row prisoners who had unsuccessfully argued that they are ineligible for the death penalty because of intellectual disability must be provided a second chance to prove their claims. On October 20, the Court decided in Walls v. State that Florida must retroactively apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Hall v. Florida, which declared Florida’s procedures for determining intellectual disability to be unconstitutional. Prisoners whose intellectual disability claims had been denied under the standard rejected in Hall will now be given new opportunities to present their claims. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Florida’s outlier practice categorically barring a prisoner from presenting evidence supporting his intellectual disability claim if his IQ score was above 70 violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Writing for the Court in Hall, Justice Kennedy explained this strict IQ cut-off requirement “disregards established medical practice” and “contravenes our Nation’s commitment to dignity and its duty to teach human decency as the mark of a civilized world.” The Hall Court held that “[i]ntellectual disability is a condition, not a number”; and therefore the determination of intellectual disability must not only consider a standard error of measure regarding IQ scores, but also consider adaptive functioning, which requires a “conjunctive and interrelated assessment.” The Florida Supreme Court recognized that “[t]he rejection of the strict IQ score cutoff increases the number of potential cases in which the State cannot impose the death penalty, while requiring a more holistic review means more defendants may be eligible for relief.” The decision could affect thirty prisoners on Florida’s death row. Like Florida, the Kentucky Supreme Court has also found Hall to apply retroactively. That court reaffirmed its retroactivy decision in White v. Kentucky, also decided on October 20.

Florida Supreme Court Strikes Down State's Capital Sentencing Statute, Requires Jury Unanimity Before Imposing Death

The Florida Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional the state’s practice of permitting judges to impose death sentences based upon a non-unanimous jury recommendation for death. In two rulings issued October 14 the court held that juries must unanimously find all facts necessary to impose a death sentence, including the existence of any aggravating factor relied upon as a reason to impose the death penalty, whether the aggravating factors in and of themselves provide sufficient grounds for imposing the death penalty, and whether the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances (reasons for life) presented by the defense. In the first case, Timothy Lee Hurst v. State of Florida, the court vacated Hurst's death sentence imposed and remanded his case for a new sentencing hearing. The second decision, Larry Darnell Perry v. State of Florida, struck down the Florida legislature's March 2016 revision of the state’s capital sentencing statute because it does not require a unanimous jury recommendation of death before the trial judge can consider imposing a death sentence. Hurst is the same defendant whose appeal reached the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year, resulting in an 8-1 decision declaring that the state's prior capital sentencing statute violated the 6th Amendment right to a jury trial by reserving for the judge, rather than the jury, the ultimate power to find the facts that could lead to a death sentence. The Court specifically held that the statute impermissibly denied Hurst a jury finding of aggravating circumstances that could make him eligible for the death penalty. In response to the Court's decision, the Florida legislature amended the statute to require juries to unanimously find at least one aggravating circumstance, but allowed the jury to recommend a death sentence if at least 10 of 12 jurors agreed. The court’s decision in Hurst made clear that the statute violated Florida state constitutional provisions requiring unanimous jury verdicts, as well as federal constitutional law. In Perry, the court struck down the amended death penalty law, saying the statute "cannot be applied constitutionally to pending prosecutions because the Act does not require unanimity in the jury’s final recommendation as to whether the defendant should be sentenced to death." While the decision in Hurst says that defendants sentenced to death under the unconstitutional sentencing procedures are not entitled to have their sentences automatically reduced to life in prison, it leaves unclear exactly what will happen in the cases of the approximately 400 people on the state's death row.

Wrongful Capital Convictions May Be More Likely in Cases of Judicial Override, Non-Unanimous Death Verdicts

New data suggests that states that capital sentencing statutes that permit judges to impose death sentences by overriding jury recommendations for life or after juries have returned non-unanimous recommendations for death may increase the risk of wrongful executions. In an article in the Yale Law Journal Forum, lawyers Patrick Mulvaney and Katherine Chamblee of the Southern Center for Human Rights report that in Alabama, the only state that still permits judges to override a jury's recommendation for life, override cases account for less than a quarter of death sentences but half of death row exonerations. They say that this may be a result of "residual doubt" among jurors, which they describe as “a state of mind that exists somewhere between ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and ‘absolute certainty,’” often resulting from weaker or more suspect evidence of guilt. Research has shown that when juror have such doubts, they are substantially more likely to vote for a life, as did jurors in the cases of Alabama death row exonerees Larry Randal Padgett (9-3 jury vote for life) and Daniel Wade Moore (pictured, left, 8-4 vote for life) and current death row prisoner Shonelle Jackson (unanimous jury life recommendation). Non-unanimous jury recommendations for death also appear to pose similar problems. Of Alabama's six death row exonerations, 83% involved either judicial override (3 cases) or non-unanimous jury votes for death (2 cases, including Anthony Ray Hinton, pictured, right). Data from Florida reveals a similar pattern: of the 20 death row exonerations for which information on the jury vote is available, 90% involved a non-unanimous recommendation for death, including three judicial overrides of jury recommendations for life. In 1984, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens raised concerns about judicial override and wrongful convictions that are now supported by data: “It may well be that the jury was sufficiently convinced of petitioner’s guilt to convict him, but nevertheless also sufficiently troubled by the possibility that an irrevocable mistake might be made . . . that [it] concluded that a sentence of death could not be morally justified in this case.” Statutes permitting judicial override or non-unanimous jury recommendations for death have been under increased scrutiny since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida in January 2016. Hurst struck down Florida's sentencing statute saying, "The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death." Florida's legislature responded by ending judicial override and requiring juries to unanimously find aggravating circumstances in capital cases, though they may still make non-unanimous sentencing recommendations. The Delaware Supreme Court struck down its sentencing statute in light of Hurst in August 2016, leaving Florida and Alabama as the only states that still permit non-unanimous jury receommendations of death.  

Florida Prosecutor, Public Defender Tied to Outlier Death Penalty Practices Suffer Landslide Election Loss

In a primary election described as reshaping the political landscape of Northeast Florida, the region voted in a landslide Tuesday to oust State Attorney Angela Corey (pictured) and Public Defender Matt Shirk. The pair's controversial policies had made Duval County one of the most prolific death sentencing counties in the country and had led to national derision of its criminal justice system. Some legal experts touted Corey's defeat by political newcomer Melissa Nelson as evidence of voter backlash against overaggressive prosecutorial policies. Northeastern Law School professor Daniel Medwed said the election showed that “the era of tough-on-crime rhetoric is coming to a close" and Fordham University law professor John Pfaff said Corey’s defeat "continues a small—but important—trend of powerful, incumbent prosecutors losing primary elections for being too aggressive." Local legal experts drew a link between the election results and Corey's hard-line death penalty practices. University of Florida law school professor Kenneth Nunn, said that “[f]or too long, Duval County has been an outlier in its excessive use of the death penalty, its harsh punishment of juveniles, and its reliance on outdated sentencing practices." Florida International University Law School Professor Stephen Harper found it "refreshing to see a prosecutor who is so overly aggressive defeated in a conservative southern jurisdiction. This goes to show, among other things, that the death penalty is on its way out.” In the Public Defender election, incumbent Matthew Shirk had drawn criticism by firing the most experienced death penalty and juvenile court lawyers and installing as his chief of homicide a lawyer who had 16 clients on death row and whom courts had found to have provided ineffective representation is several death penalty cases. Shirk was defeated by retired Judge Charlie Cofer, who had spent 18 years in the Public Defender’s Office and then 17 years as a county judge. Last fall, voters in Caddo Parish (Shreveport), Louisiana voted out a prosecutorial regime known nationally for its aggressive pursuit of the death penalty and elected its first black District Attorney.

OUTLIER COUNTIES: Duval, Florida--Controversial Prosecutor, Inadequate Defense, Systemic Death Penalty Problems

Between 2010 and 2015, only 16 counties in the United States imposed five or more death sentences. Duval County, Florida, which consistently ranks among the most punitive death sentencing counties in the country, sentenced 25 capital defendants to death. According to a new report released by the Fair Punishment Project at Harvard University, Duval produced roughly one-quarter of the death sentences imposed in Florida during that period, although the entire Jacksonville Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area -- which includes Duval County and four other counties -- accounts for only about 9% of the state's murders. The Fair Punishment Project says the county's death-sentencing rate per homicide "is more than 40 percent higher than in the rest of the state." The county's prolific death-sentencing practices are attributable to a constellation of outlier practices. Only two states, Florida and Alabama, allow death sentences to be imposed without a unanimous recommendation for death by the sentencing jury. Since 2006, 88% of the 25 Duval death sentences reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court on direct appeal had non-unanimous jury recommendations. A second key factor is the county's prosecutor, state attorney Angela Corey (pictured), of whom The Nation asked, is she "the Cruelest Prosecutor in America?" In a piece for The New York Times, Emily Bazelon focused on Corey to explain the county's heavy use of the death penalty, saying that she "has made her reputation, in part, by winning verdicts that carry the death pen­alty." Bazelon writes that Corey "has one of the highest rates of death sentences in the country, with 24 (19 in Duval) in the eight years since she was elected." Corey has said "[i]t’s my statutory and constitutional duty to seek justice for this community and to give the victim’s family justice," but she is currently pursuing a death sentence against James Rhodes for the murder of Shelby Farah, despite strong opposition from Farah's family. The county's death sentences are also clouded by racial bias. The Fair Punishment notes that, since 2010, 87% of death sentences in Duval were imposed against Black defendants, up from 62% over the preceding two decades. Duval County Judge Mark Hulsey, who presided over the 2012 capital murder trial of a black teenager, Terrance Tyrone Phillips, is the subject of ethics charges after he allegedly told a staff member he "wished all blacks could be sent back to Africa on a boat." Analysts also fault substandard defense representation for affirmatively contributing to Duval's overproduction of death sentences. In 2008, Matt Shirk, the county's newly-elected public defender, a former intern of Corey's who had pledged fiscal responsibility and to "never call a cop a liar," slashed the office's budget and fired 10 lawyers, including senior capital litigators. The Nation reports, "Shirk has boasted that he consistently returns money to the state earmarked for the investigation of mitigation evidence for death-penalty clients." He then installed as his deputy and chief of homicide, Refik Eler, who the Fair Punishment Project reports had been defense counsel "on at least 16 cases that resulted in a death sentence." Courts have found that Eler has provided substandard representation in three capital cases, with a fourth ineffectiveness claim recently argued in the Florida Supreme Court. Both Corey and Shirk face challenges in the August 30 Republican primary election, but neither office has a general election challenger.

New Poll Finds "Strong Majority" of Floridians Prefer Life Without Parole Over Death Penalty

A recent poll by researcher Craig Haney, a Professor of Psychology at the University of California - Santa Cruz, has found that a "strong majority" of Florida respondents prefer life without parole to the death penalty for people convicted of murder, even as many harbor continuing misconceptions about capital punishment that would predispose them to support the death penalty. In Haney's survey of more than 500 jury-eligible respondents who were asked to choose between Florida's statutorily available sentencing options, 57% chose life without parole, while 43% chose the death penalty, as the appropriate punishment for a person convicted of murder. The preference for life held true, Haney said, across racial groups, genders, educational levels, and religious affiliation. The Florida results are consistent with recent polls in other death penalty states, such as Kentucky and Oklahoma. Dr. Haney found that Floridians held two common misconceptions about the death penalty that affected their views on the issue: 68.9% mistakenly believed that the death penalty was cheaper than life without parole, and 40.2% mistakenly believed that people sentenced to life without parole would be released from prison. Haney said "support for the death penalty plummeted" to 29% if the life sentencing option was combined with a requirement that these prisoners be required to pay restitution to victims' families. In addition, when Floridians were given the option of diverting the $1 million per case currently spent on the death penalty to investigate unsolved rapes and murders, only one quarter still supported capital punishment. Dr. Haney's research also found that a majority of Floridians oppose the death penalty for defendants with serious mental illness, do not believe the death penalty is a deterrent, and agree that most religious opinion opposes capital punishment. Haney said asking people simply if they support the death penalty is inadequate because "[t]hat question offers a limited and often flawed snapshot of voter attitudes, capturing only abstract support or opposition, but failing to expose strong preferences and deeper pragmatic thinking."

Second Florida Trial Court Strikes Down State's Death Penalty Statute

A second Florida trial court has ruled that the state's new death penalty statute is unconstitutional. On June 9, Hillsborough County Judge Samantha Ward barred prosecutors from seeking death against Michael Edward Keetley, saying that the state's death penalty statute violated the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Judge Ward said that the Florida legislature's changes to the sentencing law after the U.S. Supreme Court had declared the old statute unconstitutional in Hurst v. Florida, created an additional set of constitutional problems. Hurst held that the Florida sentencing statute impermissibly permitted the judge, rather than the jury, to determine whether the prosecution had proven each fact necessary to impose the death penalty. In response to Hurst, the legislature passed a new law that permitted the court to impose a death sentence only if the jury unanimously found at least one aggravating circumstance that would make the defendant eligible for the death penalty and then recommended a death sentence by a vote of at least 10-2 after determining that the aggravating circumstance were sufficiently serious to justify a death sentence and outweighed any mitigating circumstances. Judge Ward said that, under the new sentencing scheme, the jury's weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances constituted a fact-finding necessary before a death sentence could be imposed. She wrote, "it defies logic, and the dictates of [the Sixth Amendment], to have the jury find one of the prerequisites unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt (that at least one aggravating factor exists), but not the other two prerequisites (that sufficient aggravators exist and that they outweigh the mitigating circumstances). Hurst specifically stated '[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death.'" Judge Ward is the second Florida judge to find the new statute unconstitutional: one month earlier, on May 9, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch also struck down the law, ruling that the portion of the statute permitting the court to impose the death penalty without a unanimous jury vote for death violates the state constitution. 

Florida Court to Hear Argument on Impact of U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Declaring Death Penalty Process Unconstitutional

On May 5, the Florida Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of Timothy Hurst, whose death sentence was overturned in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Hurst v. FloridaThe state court must determine whether the high court's ruling, which struck down Florida's sentencing scheme, entitles Hurst to a new sentencing hearing, reduces his sentence to life without parole, or requires some other outcome. The case may also decide how the Hurst ruling will affect the nearly 400 people on Florida's death row. Hurst's attorneys say he should have his death sentence reduced because, "persons previously sentenced to death for a capital felony are entitled to have their now-unconstitutional death sentences replaced by sentences of life without parole." That position received support in an amicus brief filed by three former chief justices of the Florida Supreme Court, a former state representative, a former prosecutor, and past presidents of the American Bar Association. The justice and legal experts argue that  Hurst "held Florida's death penalty statute unconstitutional," and that in such circumstances Florida law requires all death sentences imposed under the statute to be reduced to life without parole. The state attorney general's office has argued that state law requires blanket imposition of new sentences only if the death penalty itself is declared unconstitutional, and that Hurst only declared Florida's method of imposing the death penalty unconstitutional. Florida has the nation's second-largest death row, with 396 people as of January 1, 2016, before the state legislature rewrote the sentencing procedure to require a unanimous jury finding of at least one aggravating circumstance, and at least a 10-2 vote to impose a death sentence.