Florida Court ruling could spare lives of some condemned inmates

Florida Court ruling could spare lives of some condemned inmates

Florida Supreme Court

Death Penalty

Death Row

The Flordia Court made a ruling to spare the lives of condemned inmates.

McKinninon, John D.

McKinninon, John D., "Florida court ruling could spare lives of some condemned inmates," Miami Herald, May 7, 1994. 1A, 16A.

HIST 298, University of Mary Washington

1994-05-07

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.

2 jpgs

300 dpi

English

Florida

TALLAHASSEE – To their dismay, prosecutors are learning that Florida’s death sentence law suffers from a kind of genetic defect – a flaw that could give dozens of killers a second chance at life sentences.

Last month, the state Supreme Court ruled that a crucial jury instruction about premeditation and cruelty in Florida capital cases is unconstitutional. That decision sprang from a similar ruling by the U.S Supreme Court.

Combined, the two cases probably represent the most significant death penalty setbacks for prosecutors since the mid-1980s, experts say.

In both decisions, the courts ruled that standard jury instructions used in virtually every Florida death penalty case gave jurors too much discretion to demand death. The result: The sentences of most of Florida’s 339 Death Row inmates probably will have to be reviewed in appeals courts over the next few years.

For the majority of condemned inmates, the error probably will not prevent their eventual execution. But at least a few prisoners will escape the electric chair as a result of the rulings.
In fact, one – Davidson James, convicted of the 1981 robbery-murder of an elderly Hillsborough County woman – already has. He got a life sentence when his case went back.

And there’s a chance that the problem eventually will require new sentencing before new juries in dozens of cases. That would mean even more inmates would avoid electrocution.
“This is a major constitutional change in the law,” said Steven Goldstein, an associate dean at the Florida State University law school.

Mark Schlakman, a legal adviser to Gov. Lawton Chiles, says that the state’s death penalty jury instructions ought to be thoroughly reviewed in the wake of the decisions. The instructions are written by committees of lawyers and approved by the state Supreme Court.

Said Jacksonville State Attorney Harry Shorstein: “Of course, it’s difficult enough to try death penalty cases without changing the rules after the fact.”

Prosecutors have been burned before by a similar ruling. In a 1987 case called Hitchcock vs. Dugger, the U.S. Supreme Court threw the state for a loop when it held another Florida jury instruction relating to evidence in the defendant’s favor was unconstitutional. Eventually, about … Death Row inmates got new sentencing hearings.

Damage Control
This time around, with so many more sentences at risk, Florida officials are hoping to avoid that kind of chaos. And state Supreme Court justices already have made it clear that they’ll strictly enforce procedural rules that could halt most of the appeals.

In fact, some Death Row defense lawyers complain that the justices are overdoing the damage control – possibly to avoid embarrassment.

“Unless the court found some way to limit the scope of [the recent cases], the disruption on Florida’s Death Row could be significant and the Florida Supreme Court could wind up being the one blamed by the public,” said Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor who’s perhaps the leading expert on Florida’s death penalty jury instructions.

Jury instructions are the way that the law gets applied to individual cases. If those instructions are flawed, jurors are liable to apply the law incorrectly.

That’s exactly what happened in the two recent cases, the courts [are saying].

April 21 in the case of Andrea Hicks Jackson, who had been sentenced to death for the slaying of a Jacksonville police officer. In her appeal, Jackson’s lawyers alleged that a key jury instruction used at her trial was unconstitutionally vague. The instruction told jurors how to define of of the key aggravating factors used to justify death, the “cold, calculated and premeditated” factor. Jurors apparently found that the factor applied, because they recommended the death penalty for Jackson by 7-5.

But on appeal, Jackson’s lawyers argued that the jury instruction was unconstitutionally broad. The state Supreme Court concluded that Jackson’s lawyers were right. By a 5-2 cote, the court invalidated the jury instruction and ordered a new sentencing for Jackson before a new jury. Two justices Ben Overt[…] and Parker Lee McDonald, […]ented, saying th[…] though […] instruction was […].

[…], the majority […] the penalty phase of […]] case in which the […] jury instruction [on that aggravating factor] was given subject to attack,”

The decision was prompted by an earlier U.S supreme Court ruling invalidating another Florida jury instruction. That decision, issued in 1992, threw out the instruction on the so-called “heinous atrocious or cruel” aggravating factor. Again, the problem was vagueness.

The potential damage is so large because most Florida death cases involve one or both of the aggravating factors under attack. Florida prosecutors can expect to limit the damage significantly, however.

First prosecutors can argue that defendants who didn’t object to the instruction at their trials aren’t eligible for relief.
Second, they can argue that the incorrect jury instruction didn’t make any difference in the outcome – for example, where the killer’s sentence was supported by two or three other aggravating factors.

So far, those methods have stymied all but four of the 25 or so

Newspaper

McDonough, Caitlin

Williams, Megan