High court hears death penalty and sentencing guideline cases

The U.S. Supreme Court justices, divided on what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, recently heard oral arguments in cases about the death penalty and life in prison without parole.

The court has been tinkering around the edges of the Eighth Amendment for years. Ten years ago, justices barred the death penalty for people who commit crimes before age 18. Five years ago, they banned life without parole unless murder was involved. And three years ago, they blocked future mandatory life sentences, even for murder.

Last week, the court heard the plea of 69-year-old Henry Montgomery, locked up for more than 50 years now in Louisiana. He was convicted and given a mandatory life sentence for the murder of a police officer in Baton Rouge in 1963. Montgomery was 17 at the time he committed the crime. Now he wants the court’s earlier rulings banning mandatory life without parole for minors retroactively applied to his case. He wants a chance at freedom.

The arguments veered into whether the high court even has authority to decide the matter. That’s because the earlier case left the states to decide whether people already locked away for life should have another trial. Fourteen states decided to apply it retroactively; seven others said no.

In another case, the court scrutinized how the state of Florida hands down death sentences.

When Timothy Hurst was 19, he murdered a co-worker at a Popeye’s restaurant in Pensacola, Fla. The jury sentenced him to death, seven votes to five. Hurst had no prior criminal record.

“There is no other state that permits anyone to be sentenced for death other than [by] a unanimous determination by the jury,” Hurst’s attorney, Seth Waxman, said. “And the state of Florida requires unanimity for shoplifting, just not for death. It requires unanimity on all of the other elements of the crime.”

Florida law says at least one aggravating factor must be present to impose the death penalty. Aggravating factors are actions that make a murder especially onerous, like murder while committing another crime. Florida juries tell judges whether aggravating factors exist, and then they suggest life or death sentences.

But judges don’t have to follow that advice. Hurst’s argument is that Florida’s system places too much power in the hands of a judge. He claims the 7-5 split vote in his case violated his rights, citing the other 49 states that require a unanimous verdict.

Florida Solicitor General Allen Winsor noted the high court has already upheld the state’s sentencing procedures four times. And Winsor cited the advantages of judge oversight to jury decisions: “There are some real benefits associated with judicial sentencing because you’re not going to have someone’s life or death being determined exclusively on, perhaps, the emotions of a jury.”

The problem is the Supreme Court has already ruled judges cannot make factual determinations about aggravating factors. That’s a jury’s job. But the court has not said juries have to be unanimous about those facts. Florida has about 400 inmates on death row. Most won’t be affected by this case because their sentences were based on egregious aggravating facts not in dispute, or their appeals have run out.

Listen to “Legal Docket” on The World and Everything in It.