Florida's New Death Penalty Law Is Unconstitutional, State Supreme Court Rules

WASHINGTON — Florida's new death penalty statute — to the extent that it allows juries to recommend death on a vote of 10-2 — is unconstitutional, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in a pair of cases on Friday.

Further, Timothy Lee Hurst — the man whose case led to the U.S. Supreme Court to declare Florida's old death penalty scheme to be declared unconstitutional in January — will get a new sentencing hearing, the Florida Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the old statute, it did so because the state relied on “a judge’s factfinding” and not “a jury’s verdict” to sentence a person to death.

The Florida legislature passed a new statute, addressing the requirement that jurors make the sentencing decision. The new law, however, allows a non-unanimous decision of the jury — here, 10 of 12 — to impose a death sentence on a person.

The Florida Supreme Court on Friday held that is not permitted.

"[W]e hold that the Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida requires that all the critical findings necessary before the trial court may
consider imposing a sentence of death must be found unanimously by the jury," the court ruled in Hurst's case.

This, the court explained, included not just the existence of aggravating circumstances during the sentencing phase of a capital case, but also the sufficiency of those aggravating circumstances and the finding that those aggravating factors outweigh any mitigating circumstances.

Going further still, the court held that, "based on Florida’s requirement for unanimity in jury verdicts, and under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, that in order for the trial court to impose a sentence of death, the jury’s recommended sentence of death must be unanimous."

Because Florida's new statute allows a 10-2 vote for the recommendation of death, the court held, the law is not constitutional.

In Larry Darnell Perry's case, the court summarized it as such: "While most of the Act can be construed constitutionally under our holding in Hurst, the Act’s 10-2 jury
recommendation requirement renders the Act unconstitutional."

This is a developing news story. Please check beck at BuzzFeed News for more.

Source BuzzFeed - Politics http://ift.tt/2e3LLcz