A Federal Judge Has Ruled that Florida's Death Penalty is unconstitutional. He made this ruling in a "Murder For Hire" case in Miami. U.S. District Judge Jose E. Martinez ordered that a man convicted in a 1991 murder-for-hire case in Vero Beach, must receive a new sentencing hearing.
The Landmark Ruling came out of a case involving Paul Evans. He was convicted of murdering a man in a Trailer Park in 1991. The Jury voted 9-3 to impose the Death Penalty. The article in Today's Miami Herald Article describes the Death Penalty Procedure followed in this case:
Florida is one of the few states that allow juries to issue death penalty recommendations that are not unanimous. Here, 12-person juries recommend by majority vote whether someone convicted of first-degree murder should be executed. But state jurors do not have to check off on an instruction sheet which reasons contributed to their decision, as jurors are required to do in the rare death penalty case in federal court. Trial judges in Florida’s state courts have authority to override jury recommendations, although in death penalty cases, they rarely do.
The roll of the Judge in determining punishment was the legal key here. The trial judge examined the "aggravating factors" he felt were present and agreed that the Death Penalty should be imposed. Other states follow a different procedure. They have Juries decide if any aggravating factors are present. Federal Judge Martinez, who reviewed the trial judge's rulings was concerned about Florida's procedures:
Judge Martinez, in Wednesday’s ruling, said there was no way to know if all nine of the jurors in Evans’ case who voted for death were swayed by the same aggravating factors as the judge. He conceded that jury unanimity may not be constitutionally necessary, but wrote: “… It cannot be that Mr. Evans’ death sentence is constitutional when there is no evidence to suggest that even a simple majority found the existence of any one aggravating circumstance.”
Legal experts say it is unclear how far-reaching Martinez’s ruling will be. The U.S. Supreme Court has already upheld the right of judges to act independently of juries in finding a defendant’s other violent felonies as an aggravating factor in enhancing a sentence. That means the ruling won’t affect the many cases of Death Row inmates who have violent pasts, or were convicted of murder along with other violent felonies.
It is likely that other defendants recently convicted and sentenced in Death Penalty cases will use this as a basis for appeal and re-argument of their cases. There are 30 recent cases that this could impact right away.
This case brings up the point of the roll of Judge and Jury in cases where the State wants to put a Defendant to death. Should the Judge have unillateral power to look at agravating factors? Should the Jury have that power? This ruling will be on appeal for years. If it ever gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, is it likely that they, with the current makeup, will allow this ruling to stand?