Hurst v. Florida

5 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Oral Argument Preview: Is Ohio’s Statutory Death Penalty Sentencing Scheme Unconstitutional? State of Ohio v. Maurice Mason.

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanFebruary 10, 2018

    Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (Any fact exposing a defendant to a greater punishment than the statutory maximum must be considered by the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.)Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (A statutory scheme is unconstitutional when judges must determine whether any aggravating factors are present which expose the defendant to greater punishment than otherwise permitted by a jury’s verdict.)Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016)(The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary for the imposition of a death sentence. A jury’s recommendation is not enough.

  2. Merit Decision: Court Rebuffs Constitutional Challenge to Ohio’s Death Penalty Sentencing Scheme. State v. Mason.

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanApril 24, 2018

    United States v. Gabrion, 719 F.3d 511, 532-533 (6th Cir. 2013) (The weighing process does not require a finding of fact in support of a given sentence. Because a given defendant is already eligible for the complete statutory range of punishments, the selection of a particular sentence is a determination the judge may properly make.)Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016) (“The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death.” Therefore, a court must base its sentence on the verdict of an impartial jury and not a judge’s fact-finding.

  3. What’s On Their Minds: Is Ohio’s Statutory Death Penalty Sentencing Scheme Unconstitutional? State of Ohio v. Maurice Mason.

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanMarch 9, 2018

    Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (Any fact exposing a defendant to a greater punishment than the statutory maximum must be considered by the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.)Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (A statutory scheme is unconstitutional when judges must determine whether any aggravating factors are present which expose the defendant to greater punishment than otherwise permitted by a jury’s verdict.)Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016)(The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary for the imposition of a death sentence. A jury’s recommendation is not enough.

  4. Divided Panel Grants Partial Relief to Capital Habeas Petitioner

    Federal Public Defender Office, District of New MexicoShari AllisonAugust 11, 2017

    Judge Briscoe also thinks the OCCA did consider the constitutional standard and it was enough to combat arbitrariness that the victim may have suffered for several minutes before dying. On the helpful side, Judge Briscoe thinks Hurst v. Fla. 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), requires resentencing by a jury, and prohibits reweighing by the OCCA. As for the conviction, the 10th says Mr. Pavatt did not preserve two of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel ("IA"")issues in federal district court.

  5. SCOTUS: Jury, not judge, must decide whether to impose death penalty

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJanuary 12, 2016

    Hurst v. Florida, USSC No. 14-7505, 2016 WL 112683 (January 12, 2016); reversing and remandingHurst v. State, 147 So.3d 435 (Fla. 2014); Scotusblog page (includes links to briefs and commentary)In Florida the jury makes a recommendation as to whether to impose the death penalty, but the judge then holds a separate sentencing hearing and decides whether there are sufficient aggravating circumstances to justify the death penalty. This sentencing scheme is unconstitutional because “[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death.