W A S H I N G T O N -- The Supreme Court overturned the death
sentences of dozens of convicted killers Monday, ruling that juries and not
judges must make this life-or-death decision.
The 7-2 ruling affects the way death sentences are imposed in at least five
states. The court made its ruling retroactive, meaning that more than 150
death sentences must be reconsidered.
The court held that a sentence imposed by a judge violates a defendant's
constitutional right to a trial by jury. Juries, not judges, must consider
all factors that lead to a death sentence, the court found.
In some states juries determine guilt or innocence, but a judge then bases
the 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."
Monday's ruling was the last in a series of cases this term in which the high
court examined the ways capital punishment is carried out in the United
States. Last week the court divided bitterly in exempting mentally retarded
people from the death penalty.
None of the cases attacks the basic constitutionality of capital punishment
for the general population.
The court has also signaled its continued interest in the mechanics of the
death penalty by agreeing 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.
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.
In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed an
interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only.
|
