Supreme Court Will Hear Case Challenging the Death Penalty

The Court agreed to hear a lawsuit that says Florida is unconstitutionally sentencing mentally ill defendants to death.

National Journal
March 9, 2015, 8:57 a.m.

Timothy Lee Hurst has been on Flor­ida’s death row for more than a dec­ade, but he says his sen­tence was un­con­sti­tu­tion­al—and now the Su­preme Court has agreed to hear him out.

Hurst was con­victed of first-de­gree murder in the grisly death of a wo­man he worked with at a Popeye’s res­taur­ant. She was found in the store’s freez­er, bound, gagged, and stabbed at least 60 times with a box cut­ter. The store’s safe had been emp­tied.

Ac­cord­ing to court re­cords, two of Hurst’s friends test­i­fied that he had ad­mit­ted to the crime. One of them helped him hide his bloody clothes, the stolen money, and the vic­tim’s driver’s li­cense. A jury de­lib­er­ated for roughly six hours be­fore con­vict­ing Hurst of first-de­gree murder and re­com­mend­ing the death pen­alty.

At a second sen­ten­cing hear­ing, though, his law­yers ar­gued that he is men­tally dis­abled—which would mean he could not be sen­tenced to death.

His moth­er drank heav­ily dur­ing her preg­nancy, ac­cord­ing to court re­cords, and a doc­tor test­i­fied that there was wide­spread dam­age to Hurst’s brain. Fam­ily mem­bers said he was slow to de­vel­op and had trouble speak­ing, tak­ing care of him­self, and com­plet­ing simple tasks.

That second sen­ten­cing hear­ing still pro­duced a death sen­tence. But Hurst’s law­yers have ap­pealed all the way to the Su­preme Court, ar­guing that the way Flor­ida ad­min­is­ters death sen­tences is un­con­sti­tu­tion­al.

The high court said Monday that it will hear Hurst’s case. The justices will con­sider wheth­er Flor­ida’s sen­ten­cing rules vi­ol­ate the Sixth Amend­ment, which guar­an­tees the right to a tri­al by jury, or the Eighth Amend­ment, which pro­hib­its “cruel and un­usu­al pun­ish­ment.”

The prob­lem, ac­cord­ing to Hurst’s law­yers, is that Flor­ida doesn’t re­quire jur­ies to make a spe­cif­ic de­term­in­a­tion about wheth­er a de­fend­ant is men­tally dis­abled. While the jury heard evid­ence about Hurst’s men­tal ca­pa­city, his ap­peal states, “it was “¦ nev­er in­struc­ted that if it found him to suf­fer from that in­tel­lec­tu­al dis­ab­il­ity, it had to re­com­mend a sen­tence of life.”

“Wheth­er a de­fend­ant is men­tally re­tarded or not is a fac­tu­al is­sue and hence “¦ must be re­solved by the jury,” his ap­peal to the Su­preme Court says.

Hurst is in­vok­ing a 2002 case, Ring v. Ari­zona, in which the Su­preme Court ruled that jur­ies have to be in­volved in hand­ing down the death pen­alty. Any facts that are ne­ces­sary to trig­ger the death pen­alty must be presen­ted to a jury and proven bey­ond a reas­on­able doubt, the Court said.

“I be­lieve that the fun­da­ment­al mean­ing of the jury-tri­al guar­an­tee of the Sixth Amend­ment is that all facts es­sen­tial to im­pos­i­tion of the level of pun­ish­ment that the de­fend­ant re­ceives—wheth­er the stat­ute calls them ele­ments of the of­fense, sen­ten­cing factors, or Mary Jane—must be found by the jury bey­ond a reas­on­able doubt,” Justice Ant­on­in Scalia wrote in a con­cur­ring opin­ion in Ring.

Hurst says Flor­ida is vi­ol­at­ing that hold­ing by not re­quir­ing jur­ies to de­term­ine wheth­er de­fend­ants are “men­tally re­tarded and hence in­eligible for ex­e­cu­tion.”

The Flor­ida Su­preme Court ruled that the Ring pre­ced­ent doesn’t con­flict with the way Flor­ida ad­min­is­ters the death pen­alty.

Ring says jur­ies must con­sider any facts that would trig­ger a heav­ier pen­alty; that doesn’t mean jur­ies also have to spe­cific­ally con­sider evid­ence that would lead to a weak­er sen­tence, Flor­ida ar­gued in a brief to the high court.

“We have re­peatedly held that a de­fend­ant has no right … to a jury de­term­in­a­tion of wheth­er he is men­tally re­tarded,” the Flor­ida Su­preme Court ruled in Hurst’s case. “Some states have es­tab­lished pro­ced­ures un­der which a jury does de­term­ine if a cap­it­al de­fend­ant is men­tally re­tarded. Flor­ida is not one of those states, and the United States Su­preme Court has not man­dated any spe­cif­ic pro­ced­ure for mak­ing the de­term­in­a­tion of men­tal re­tard­a­tion in the cap­it­al sen­ten­cing con­text.”

Ar­gu­ments in the case have not yet been sched­uled.

What We're Following See More »
Trump Calls 50,000 Feds Back to Work
1 hours ago

"The Trump administration on Tuesday said it has called back tens of thousands of federal workers to fulfill key government tasks, including disbursing tax refunds, overseeing flight safety and inspecting the nation’s food and drug supply, as it seeks to blunt the impact of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. The nearly 50,000 furloughed federal employees are being brought back to work without pay — part of a group of about 800,000 federal workers who are not receiving paychecks during the shutdown."

Pelosi Asks Trump to Postpone SOTU
1 hours ago
House Votes to Condemn Rep. King for Racist Comments
19 hours ago

"The House voted overwhelmingly to rebuke GOP Rep. Steve King for making racist comments in a recent interview. The rare resolution of disapproval, which included a broad denunciation of white supremacist and white nationalist movements, was passed on a 424-1 vote. But some House Democrats argue the move doesn't go far enough and are pushing censure motions against the Iowa Republican."

Steve King Will Vote For Resolution
20 hours ago
Judge Rules Against Air Traffic Controllers
21 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.