High Court Overturns Death Sentences

AP ^ | 6-24-2002 | ANNE GEARAN

[Cagey]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court overturned the death sentences of dozens of convicted killers Monday, ruling that juries and not judges must make such life-or-death decisions.

The 7-2 ruling affects the way death sentences are imposed in at least five states and means that more than 150 death sentences must be reconsidered.

Monday's ruling concerned instances in which juries determined defendants' guilt or innocence and judges alone decided their punishment. The court held that such a sentence imposed by a judge violates a defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury.

It was the second major Supreme Court ruling in less than a week affecting the ways that states sentence people to death. Last week, the justices divided bitterly in exempting mentally retarded people from execution.

None of the cases attacks the basic constitutionality of capital punishment for the general population.

The court has also agreed to hear an appeal in the fall from Tennessee death row inmate Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman. That case could have far-reaching effects if the justices decide to loosen the rules for when condemned inmates can get new evidence before a judge.

Nationwide, about 3,700 people await execution for crimes committed in the 38 states that allow the death penalty.

In some states juries determine guilt or innocence, but a judge then can base a death sentence on aggravating factors such as the heinous nature of a murder or whether it was committed for monetary gain.

Monday's ruling turned on the Constitution's guarantee of a jury of one's peers and a Supreme Court ruling two years ago that struck down another kind of sentence determined by a judge instead of a jury.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for a majority that included an unusual alliance of conservative and liberal-leaning justices, said the court's 2000 ruling in a case called Apprendi v. New Jersey cannot be reconciled with the death penalty sentencing laws in Arizona and four other states in which one or more judges impose the sentence.

The Apprendi case concerned a judge's ability to lengthen a sentence by two years if a crime was determined to be a hate crime. The high court struck down that sentencing law.

"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," Ginsburg wrote. "We hold that the Sixth Amendment applies to both."

Ginsburg was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote separately to agree with the outcome.

The case concerned an Arizona inmate, and the ruling will immediately apply in that state and in Idaho and Montana, where a single judge decides the sentence. It will also apply immediately in Colorado and Nebraska, where a panel of judges makes the sentencing decision.

It was not immediately clear what will happen to inmates in those states. Some lawyers have said death row inmates' sentences could be commuted to life in prison, as was done when the Supreme Court put a temporary halt to the death penalty in the 1970s. Or the inmates could be resentenced, with some receiving death sentences all over again.

Also unclear was whether the ruling will have a spillover effect in four other states in which juries only recommend whether a convicted murderer should receive the death penalty or life in prison: Florida, Alabama, Indiana, and Delaware.

A judge makes the final call in those states. Indiana, however, recently passed a law that will require judges to follow a jury's sentencing recommendations.

In dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicted that many inmates in the additional four states will challenge their sentences now.

The earlier Apprendi ruling "had a severely destabilizing effect on our criminal justice system," O'Connor wrote in a dissent joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist "The decision today is only going to add to these already serious effects."

Arizona has 129 people on death row, Idaho 21 and Montana six. Colorado has five, and Nebraska seven. Florida has 383, Alabama 187, Indiana 39 and Delaware 20.

Timothy Stuart Ring was convicted of killing an armored car driver during a 1994 robbery in Phoenix.

Ring challenged his sentence and Arizona's law on grounds that his constitutional right to a jury was violated when a judge held a separate hearing after the jury that convicted Ring was dismissed.

The judge heard testimony at a sentencing hearing from an accomplice who said Ring planned the robbery and murdered the guard. The judge then determined that the aggravating factors warranted death.

"I was essentially given two trials," Ring said in an Associated Press interview earlier this year. "One before a jury and then one before a judge."

The Arizona Supreme Court rejected Ring's constitutional challenge last year.

Ring's case put the court in an awkward position. The high court had already upheld the constitutionality of Arizona's law in 1990, but that was before its ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey.

Finding the two rulings irreconcilable, the high court took the rare step of overturning one of its own fairly recent decisions. The first decision was written by O'Connor, who defended it in her dissent Monday.

The case is Ring v. Arizona, 01-488.

[Sir Gawain]

But I still stand firm in my belief that the SCOTUS is unready to make a 'good' ruling per the Second Amendment at this time.

I agree there. It makes me wonder why they understand some of the Constitution but not other parts.

[Lazamataz]

I suspect that the courts are beginning to see that there is a real movement in the judicial community to end the death penalty.

I agree, and this decision affirms my belief that this is the current trend.

[BikerNYC]

I think judges don't have faith in the integrity of state's attorneys, police, and jailhouse witnesses.

I think you're right.

[hobbes1]

I suppose. I retract my criticism of this decision.

And I, Mine...lol

[hobbes1]

Look, Like it or not, the State did an awful job of making that case....Period.

The Juice MAY have been involved, but it didn;t go down the way they say it did. Period.

[hchutch]

Exactly.

As far as I care, conservative in Congress and Bush have been given a task to do: Win the war and turn this country around. And I add the following instructions:

"In carrying out the task assigned....you will be governed by the principle of calculated risk, which you will interpret to mean the avoidance of exposure of your force to attack by superior enemy forces without prospect of inflicting, as a result of such exposure, greater damage to the enemy".

These are not my words, but the orders issued to a tactical naval commander by his superior on the eve of a decisive battle. I feel that their application is vital to the conservative movement at this point in time.

[discostu]

This'l be a fun thread to watch, you'll be able to see the people that read the article and those that just read the headline. From a conservative point of view the headline is pretty damning, if you actually read enough of the article to get to the actual decision and its basis this is a solid SCOTUS decision. IMHO anything that takes power away from activist judges = good.

[hobbes1]

Damn Straight.

[Sir Gawain]

800 murderers get off scot free thanks to a U.S Supreme Court technicality.

I couldn't find this in the article.

[goldstategop]

No, but it sucks they escaped the just death penalty for their crimes thanks to an activist Court that had to make its ruling retroactive.

[goldstategop]

Its an estimate of how many are effected by today's SCOTUS decision. The truth is no one really knows. We'd all be happy if it were fewer than a dozen.

[frmrda]

Here's where I disagree that it's a state issue (although I don't think your point of view is crazy or unfounded). The right to trial by jury is contained in the federal constitution, so to me this is not a case where the feds are overreaching against the states. If that were the case, you could be sure that Justice Thomas, one of the greatest defenders of state rights in recent memory, would have dissented. Rather, I think this is a valid decision and interpretation of the constitution.

[Sir Gawain]

No, but it sucks they escaped the just death penalty for their crimes thanks to an activist Court that had to make its ruling retroactive.

It's not an activist court in this case. The SC is correcting activist state courts. Geez. Some people complain about everything.

[discostu]

Don't buy into the panic. According to the article about 150 death row cases will have their sentences reconsidered. You don't let people out just because the penalty phase gets over turned. if the guilt phase is overturned they go free, penalty phase they stay in the can and you do that part again.

[Sir Gawain]

Its an estimate of how many are effected by today's SCOTUS decision. The truth is no one really knows. We'd all be happy if it were fewer than a dozen.

So what? It affected the sentences, not the verdicts.

[Sabertooth]

The 7-2 ruling affects the way death sentences are imposed in at least five states and means that more than 150 death sentences must be reconsidered. Monday's ruling concerned instances in which juries determined defendants' guilt or innocence and judges alone decided their punishment. The court held that such a sentence imposed by a judge violates a defendant's constitutional right to a trial by jury....

None of the cases attacks the basic constitutionality of capital punishment for the general population...

It was not immediately clear what will happen to inmates in those states. Some lawyers have said death row inmates' sentences could be commuted to life in prison, as was done when the Supreme Court put a temporary halt to the death penalty in the 1970s. Or the inmates could be resentenced, with some receiving death sentences all over again.

Well, if this decision turns on the right to trial by jury and not the constitutionality of capital punishment, then it stands to reason that any sentence, and not just the death penalty, that isn't decided by a jury must be thrown out. That would include life sentences.

Therefore, if we follow the court's logic here, every signle one of these sentences is going to have to go back before a jury for penalty phase, or the convicted capital murderers will have to be released. The automatic commutation of the death penalty to life in prison, as happened in the 1970s, would not apply, since that turned on the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Eighth Ammendment, not the "jury of his peers" clause.

But of course, some reason would have to be contorted not to release these murderers, since no one would seriously suggest that they all be released.

I don't really have a sense of what the Framers would say on this matter, but it seems that the can of worms has only just begun to spill.

[jokar]

800 murderers get off scot free thanks to a U.S Supreme Court technicality. Way to go American justice!...

This doesn't say they get off Scot free. The death sentence portion will have to be retried.

In the old days we had Jury nullification of the actual law. I think this is closer to the constitutional intent then one jurist deciding your fate. It's a good thing.

[goldstategop]

Oh and resentencing them means more appeals? Add another 20 years before they're executed. <sarcasm