Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Supreme Court Ruling Will Remove 800 From Death Row
AFP ^ | 2/25/2002 | Staff

Posted on 06/25/2002 5:16:15 PM PDT by ex-Texan

US Supreme Court Ruling Will Remove 800 From Death Row

6-25-2

(AFP) - The US Supreme Court ruled that only a jury may impose the death penalty, a landmark decision that could affect hundreds of condemned prisoners.

The 7-2 ruling Monday in the case of Timothy Ring of Arizona puts in limbo death sentences against some 800 inmates and will force changes in the death penalty law in nine states where judges have been allowed to impose the sentence: Florida, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, Montana, Alabama, Indiana, Delaware and Nebraska.

The justices found that the US Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantee of a trial by jury was violated by allowing judges to impose death sentences.

"The right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment would be senselessly diminished if it encompassed the factfinding necessary to increase a defendant's sentence by two years, but not the factfinding necessary to put him to death," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the majority decision.

"We hold that the Sixth Amendment applies to both."

The decision is an additional blow from the high court to the death penalty -- which remains legal in 38 of the 50 United States -- after Thursday's decision which effectively prohibited the execution of the mentally retarded on the grounds that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution.

In nine US states, although juries determine the guilt of the accused, a judge has, until now, had the power to increase the sentence, and even to condemn the prisoner to death, under aggravating circumstances.

The 7-2 ruling included votes from justices normally considered liberal as well as conservative.

Two executions initially slated for early February were suspended by Florida officials once the high court agreed to review Ring's challenge to the constitutionality of his sentence.

Ring was condemned in 1994 for the murder of an armored car driver whose body was discovered only after the truck had been abandoned. Ring had not been placed at the scene of the crime, and the jury found him guilty of second-degree murder, which in Arizona, absent of aggravating circumstances, carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.

However, after the testimony of Ring's accomplices, the judge found an aggravating circumstance: that the murder had been committed for financial gain. He sentenced Ring to death.

"Arizona presents no specific reasons for excepting capital defendants from the constitutional protections extended to defendants generally, and none is readily apparent," Ginsburg wrote.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed to the more than 1,000 challenges to death sentences that have already been filed. She wrote in her dissent -- joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- that the court system could expect to be overwhelmed with such cases.

Thirty-three people have been executed in the United States since the beginning of the year, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, an anti-death penalty group.

"The Supreme Court, like so many other institutions in our society, has rightly expressed deep reservations about the way the death penalty is being implemented," said the center's director, Richard Dieter.

Copyright © 2002 AFP. All rights reserved. All information displayed in this section (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by Agence France-Presse.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: nodeathpenalty
The New York Times has the same report up.
1 posted on 06/25/2002 5:16:15 PM PDT by ex-Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
This decision will ultimately help make the Death Penalty illegal in the United States, IMHO.
2 posted on 06/25/2002 5:18:58 PM PDT by SunStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
Here is NYT / Yahoo report:

Yahoo Report Here

3 posted on 06/25/2002 5:22:05 PM PDT by ex-Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan

Article VI.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Gee, I don't see the words "imposed sentence" anywhere.
Have they thrown out the conviction or can we just not trust judges to decide anything in general?

4 posted on 06/25/2002 5:37:42 PM PDT by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: michigander
The way I read the decision is there will be 800 + convicted murderers lining up for new trials. The states will have to decide what they want to do. Perhaps it might be a good idea for the states to coordinate what it is that they want to do.

There is gonna be some celebrating behind bars tonight.

5 posted on 06/25/2002 5:51:27 PM PDT by ex-Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
"The justices found that the US Constitution's Sixth Amendment guarantee of a trial by jury was violated by allowing judges to impose death sentences."

Time for the citizens to step up and do their duty when they serve on a jury.

Either that - or let the killers be paroled back to the streets. The death penalty makes sure they will never kill an innocent child - or any person again!!

6 posted on 06/25/2002 5:57:35 PM PDT by LADY J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
The states will have to decide what they want to do.

But didn't they (the states) already?

7 posted on 06/25/2002 6:01:34 PM PDT by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ex-Texan
and the jury found him guilty of second-degree murder, which in Arizona, absent of aggravating circumstances, carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.

However, after the testimony of Ring's accomplices, the judge found an aggravating circumstance: that the murder had been committed for financial gain. He sentenced Ring to death.

So, looks like this just goes back to a life in prison sentence. For the most part, that's all that death row is, anyway.

8 posted on 06/25/2002 6:02:20 PM PDT by T. P. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LADY J
Ha! I just got summoned today. Better believe if guilty, i wouldn't hesitate to vote DEATH for some sleazebag murderer. I can't wait to sit on a jury.
9 posted on 06/25/2002 6:02:34 PM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
"Ha! I just got summoned today. Better believe if guilty, i wouldn't hesitate to vote DEATH for some sleazebag murderer. I can't wait to sit on a jury."

Good for you!!! Stay true to your beliefs and don't let any lame brain liberals make you change your mind!!

10 posted on 06/25/2002 6:05:29 PM PDT by LADY J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!
It's an intersting experience.
I served on an open murder charge trial.
Out of everyone that was called to the jury box, I was the only one that didn't get asked any questions by either attorney upon arrival. Go figure?
Guilty of murder in the second degree... (insert the sound of the gavel hitting the bench here) Bam!
11 posted on 06/25/2002 6:15:48 PM PDT by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: michigander
Gee, I don't see the words "imposed sentence" anywhere.

That's because the author of this article doesn't know what he's talking about. The SC did not rule that only a "jury may impose the death penalty." That statement isn't even close to being accurate. The Court simply stated that facts not presented to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be used by a judge to increase a defendants sentence beyond the prescribed statutory maximum.

For example... If the prescribed statutory maximum for Crime X is the death penalty, and a jury finds a defendant guilty of Crime X, the judge is most certainly free to sentence the defendant to death. However, if the statutory maximum for Crime Z is life in prison, and a jury finds a defendant guilty of Crime Z, the judge can NOT then use additional info which the jury never saw and declare that the defendant should be sentenced to death because he is actually guilty of Crime X, not Crime Z.

12 posted on 06/26/2002 1:28:34 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
Ahh. Thanks for the explanation.
It's good to "see" you.
13 posted on 06/26/2002 4:45:11 AM PDT by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson