Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty

Join Us!
Open NavigationOpen Search
  • Donate
  • About FADP
    • Contact
    • What We Do
    • Who We Are
    • Advisory Council
    • Supporting Groups
    • Press Room
  • Get Informed
    • Fact Sheets
      • Serious Mental Illness
      • Murder Victims’ Family Members
      • Race
      • Public Opinion
    • About Florida’s Death Penalty
    • FL Innocence List
    • Voices on the Death Penalty
      • Stories
        • Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin
  • Get Involved
    • Take Action!
      • Oppose SB 450/HB 555
      • More Ways to Help!
    • For Groups!
    • Events
      • Cities for Life
      • Archive
  • SMI Campaign
    • SMI Supporting Groups
    • SMI Bills Advocacy Toolkit
    • Sign-on Letters
      • Murder Victims’ Family Members
      • Law Enforcement
      • Faith Leaders
      • Exonerees
      • Mental Health Advocates
  • Join Us!
  • En Español
    • Hojas informativas
      • Las personas con enfermedades mentales graves
      • La raza y la pena de muerte
      • Las familias de las víctimas de asesinatos
You are here: Home / Press Releases / Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Statement on Hurst / Perry FSC Decisions

Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Statement on Hurst / Perry FSC Decisions

October 16, 2016 by Mark Elliott

Today the Florida Supreme Court resoundingly embraced the importance of the judgment of a jury under the Sixth Amendment in determining beyond a reasonable doubt whether a defendant is eligible for the death penalty in Florida. This determination must be based on deliberations in which twelve citizens of the state are instructed to consider the most serious penalty the state metes out. The Hurst Court makes clear that no matter how horrific the facts of an offense, those twelve jurors have both the right and the responsibility to determine, unanimously, if the aggravated facts outweigh any mitigating circumstances. Only then can they recommend a death sentence. Importantly, their consideration of death eligibility is not a numbers game. The jury could find that only one mitigating circumstance, such as mental illness, is strong enough to outweigh thirty aggravating factors, and the Court has firmly protected their right to do so today. The Court was also careful to make clear that even when a jury finds that a defendant to be death-eligible, each juror still retains the right under the Eight Amendment to recommend life based on his or her own moral assessment of mercy, as checked by society’s evolving standards of decency.

I know of no one on death row in Florida who was sentenced by a jury that was informed of these two indispensable rights and duties before recommending a death sentence, and no judge should try to guess now as to how any jurors, collectively or individually, would have decided a given case had they been so instructed. I think it is safe to say that everyone, or virtually everyone, on death row now has a legitimate basis for requesting a new sentencing hearing.

Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers – FACDL Statement on Hurst / Perry decisions. Sonya Rudenstine, Co-Chair, Amicus Curiae Committee

Filed Under: Press Releases

Back to top ▴

Back to top ▴

TAKE ACTION!
JOIN US!
DONATE
Tweets by FADPorg

P.O. Box 82943 Tampa, FL 33682 | info@fadp.org
Copyright © 2023 Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (FADP)