Second ruling, had it come earlier, may have saved some inmates, ex-public defender says
Dublin Core
Title
Second ruling, had it come earlier, may have saved some inmates, ex-public defender says
Subject
Death penalty
Supreme Court--United States
Description
An article about a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed Florida courts to consider additional mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases.
Creator
Lyons, Tom
Source
The Gainesville Sun
Publisher
HIST 298, University of Mary Washington
Date
1987-04-23
Rights
The materials in this online collection are held by Special Collections, Simpson Library, University of Mary Washington and are available for educational use. For this purpose only, you may reproduce materials without prior permission on the condition that you provide attribution of the source.
Format
1 JPG
300 DPI
Language
English
Coverage
Florida
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
A U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday inspired a former death-case lawyer to blast Florida’s court system for decisions he thinks probably cost several lives.
Mike Mello was an assistant public defender in West Palm Beach when he tried, in federal appeals court, to overturn James Ernest Hitchcock’s death sentence. Mello now lives in Washington, D.C.
The appeal argued that Hitchcock’s 1977 sentence was imposed unfairly because the judge interpreted Florida statutes – as many judges apparently did – as meaning that judges and juries deciding on the death penalty could consider only the specific list of mitigating circumstances spelled out in Florida law.
Such limiting of possible leniency-inspiring factors is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, as it did in a similar U.S. Supreme Court decision in a 1978 Ohio case.
The 1978 ruling changed the sentencing rules in Florida, too. Mello said those sentenced to death in Florida before then have had no luck getting their sentences reviewed – until now.
Hitchcock, sentenced to death in 1977, had his appeal rejected by Florida’s supreme court despite the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
But on Wednesday, Hitchcock won a new sentencing hearing in a 9-0 vote of the nation’s highest court.
The decision was a spark of good news for death-penalty opponents in Florida on the day when a more sweeping U.S. Supreme Court decision was made in favor of death-penalty backers.
But Mello said the Hitchcock decision not only gives Hitchcock a chance at a life sentence with a 25-year mandatory, it also gives hope to a number of other long-time Florida Death Row veterans.
Florida’s Attorneys General’s office has a more conservative opinion, but Mello said, “The case will affect two dozen or so cases in Florida. Basically, every Florida death sentence approved prior to summer of ’78 has this issue in it.”
Several other possible cases may have become moot in the most final way possible – by the executions of the potential appellants, he said.
Mello lapsed from his restrained, professional tone when he said, “Almost every one of these people who’ve been executed has had the same damn issue. You’ve got a dozen dead people who were tried during the same period, and some had the same errors.
“That’s what’s wrong with the death penalty,” Mello said. “If you happen to be still alive when the big decision comes out, then you get a new trial. If your case was a little too early, tough.”
Carolyn Snurnowski, director of criminal appeals for Florida’s Attorney General’s office, said she could not agree that many of those executed in Florida in recent years would have been entitled to new sentencings.
But Snurnowski did agree the Hitchcock decision will mean her office will have to handle a flurry of appeals, “just as all U.S. Supreme Court decisions do,” she said. “We’ll live with it.”
She would not speculate about how many of those appeals might succeed.
Mello said the ruling would not lead to new trials or dropped charges – just to new sentence hearings in which more mitigating circumstances would be presented and considered.
“This isn’t going to put anyone back on the street,” Mello said. “The only question is life or death.”
Hitchcock was convicted of strangling his 13-year-old stepdaughter in Orange County in 1976 when he was 20. Almost four years ago he received a stay of execution the day before his scheduled death by electrocution.
At his trial, his defense lawyer asked the judge and jury to consider Hitchcock’s age, lack of significant criminal history, poor upbringing, potential for rehabilitation and his voluntary surrender to police.
“Look at the overall picture,” the defense argued at the sentencing, according to Mello.
But the trial judge who imposed the death sentence referred in jury instructions, and in his own execution order, only to Florida’s list of mitigating factors.
The list included age and prior record – but none of the other considerations that the defense argued were relevant.
Mike Mello was an assistant public defender in West Palm Beach when he tried, in federal appeals court, to overturn James Ernest Hitchcock’s death sentence. Mello now lives in Washington, D.C.
The appeal argued that Hitchcock’s 1977 sentence was imposed unfairly because the judge interpreted Florida statutes – as many judges apparently did – as meaning that judges and juries deciding on the death penalty could consider only the specific list of mitigating circumstances spelled out in Florida law.
Such limiting of possible leniency-inspiring factors is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday, as it did in a similar U.S. Supreme Court decision in a 1978 Ohio case.
The 1978 ruling changed the sentencing rules in Florida, too. Mello said those sentenced to death in Florida before then have had no luck getting their sentences reviewed – until now.
Hitchcock, sentenced to death in 1977, had his appeal rejected by Florida’s supreme court despite the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
But on Wednesday, Hitchcock won a new sentencing hearing in a 9-0 vote of the nation’s highest court.
The decision was a spark of good news for death-penalty opponents in Florida on the day when a more sweeping U.S. Supreme Court decision was made in favor of death-penalty backers.
But Mello said the Hitchcock decision not only gives Hitchcock a chance at a life sentence with a 25-year mandatory, it also gives hope to a number of other long-time Florida Death Row veterans.
Florida’s Attorneys General’s office has a more conservative opinion, but Mello said, “The case will affect two dozen or so cases in Florida. Basically, every Florida death sentence approved prior to summer of ’78 has this issue in it.”
Several other possible cases may have become moot in the most final way possible – by the executions of the potential appellants, he said.
Mello lapsed from his restrained, professional tone when he said, “Almost every one of these people who’ve been executed has had the same damn issue. You’ve got a dozen dead people who were tried during the same period, and some had the same errors.
“That’s what’s wrong with the death penalty,” Mello said. “If you happen to be still alive when the big decision comes out, then you get a new trial. If your case was a little too early, tough.”
Carolyn Snurnowski, director of criminal appeals for Florida’s Attorney General’s office, said she could not agree that many of those executed in Florida in recent years would have been entitled to new sentencings.
But Snurnowski did agree the Hitchcock decision will mean her office will have to handle a flurry of appeals, “just as all U.S. Supreme Court decisions do,” she said. “We’ll live with it.”
She would not speculate about how many of those appeals might succeed.
Mello said the ruling would not lead to new trials or dropped charges – just to new sentence hearings in which more mitigating circumstances would be presented and considered.
“This isn’t going to put anyone back on the street,” Mello said. “The only question is life or death.”
Hitchcock was convicted of strangling his 13-year-old stepdaughter in Orange County in 1976 when he was 20. Almost four years ago he received a stay of execution the day before his scheduled death by electrocution.
At his trial, his defense lawyer asked the judge and jury to consider Hitchcock’s age, lack of significant criminal history, poor upbringing, potential for rehabilitation and his voluntary surrender to police.
“Look at the overall picture,” the defense argued at the sentencing, according to Mello.
But the trial judge who imposed the death sentence referred in jury instructions, and in his own execution order, only to Florida’s list of mitigating factors.
The list included age and prior record – but none of the other considerations that the defense argued were relevant.
Original Format
Newspaper
Contributor of the Digital Item
Walker, Woodie
Student Editor of the Digital Item
Dickinson, Terra
Files
Citation
Lyons, Tom, “Second ruling, had it come earlier, may have saved some inmates, ex-public defender says,” HIST299, accessed July 12, 2026, https://hist299.umwhistory.org/items/show/111.