The right of due process is one of the most characterizing features that embody the spirit of American liberty. Can anyone imagine a world without constitutional protections, provided for the accused, against arbitrary accusations? Before the establishment of the United States’ Constitution, the founding fathers of America understood that rights inherently bestowed unto the people are rights that should be protected by government institutions. The right against cruel and unusual punishment and the right to a trial by jury are just two of the several protections offered to Americans by the Constitution. In the case Hurst v. State of Florida, Timothy Hurst was charged, convicted, and sentenced to death for the murder of Cynthia Harrison at the
…show more content…
Arizona established case law that would be used as precedent for every subsequent case pertaining to the right to trial by jury set by the 6th amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States held in that case that a judge cannot unilaterally identify aggravating factors and sentence defendants to death, which, according to the petitioners, was exactly what happened in Hurst’s case. Florida juries are not asked to make specified findings as to which aggravators they found, much less are they required to agree upon the same aggravator. The grey area lies in the fact that once the jury disclosed its advisory sentence of death, the court had no clue as to which aggravating factor justified their recommendation for Hurst’s sentence. Therefore, it is entirely possible that when the judge conducted his/her separate hearing and determined the existence of the aggravating circumstance (which would then yield a death sentence), he/she completely rejected the jury’s findings, and thus, would have applied an independent understanding of the case and its circumstances to his/her decision to sentence the defendant to death. According to the petitioner, the jury had no considerable say in the fate of the defendant, but instead, “it was the court’s factual findings-not the jury’s- that authorize[d] the imposition of the death sentence” (Brief of Petitioner at 15). This violates case law under Ring v. …show more content…
Arizona required that juries make all the fact findings on the existence of aggravating circumstances. The jury in Hurst v. State of Florida did exactly that. No Florida jury can recommend death without first determining whether a minimum of one aggravating circumstance applies. Therefore, the requisite established by Ring was satisfied, and the defendant was eligible for the death penalty after the jury concluded its deliberation. The State further noted that Florida judges and juries act like “co-sentencers,” which complies with Ring because the judges merely affirm or deny the recommended sentence given by the jury. They do not independently make certain findings as to which circumstances apply, nor do they arbitrarily sentence defendants to death without the jury’s input. “By requiring the jury and the judge to find at least one aggravating circumstance,” the State added in their brief, “Florida’s hybrid system only provides additional
Arizona established case law that would be used as precedent for every subsequent case pertaining to the right to trial by jury set by the 6th amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States held in that case that a judge cannot unilaterally identify aggravating factors and sentence defendants to death, which, according to the petitioners, was exactly what happened in Hurst’s case. Florida juries are not asked to make specified findings as to which aggravators they found, much less are they required to agree upon the same aggravator. The grey area lies in the fact that once the jury disclosed its advisory sentence of death, the court had no clue as to which aggravating factor justified their recommendation for Hurst’s sentence. Therefore, it is entirely possible that when the judge conducted his/her separate hearing and determined the existence of the aggravating circumstance (which would then yield a death sentence), he/she completely rejected the jury’s findings, and thus, would have applied an independent understanding of the case and its circumstances to his/her decision to sentence the defendant to death. According to the petitioner, the jury had no considerable say in the fate of the defendant, but instead, “it was the court’s factual findings-not the jury’s- that authorize[d] the imposition of the death sentence” (Brief of Petitioner at 15). This violates case law under Ring v. …show more content…
Arizona required that juries make all the fact findings on the existence of aggravating circumstances. The jury in Hurst v. State of Florida did exactly that. No Florida jury can recommend death without first determining whether a minimum of one aggravating circumstance applies. Therefore, the requisite established by Ring was satisfied, and the defendant was eligible for the death penalty after the jury concluded its deliberation. The State further noted that Florida judges and juries act like “co-sentencers,” which complies with Ring because the judges merely affirm or deny the recommended sentence given by the jury. They do not independently make certain findings as to which circumstances apply, nor do they arbitrarily sentence defendants to death without the jury’s input. “By requiring the jury and the judge to find at least one aggravating circumstance,” the State added in their brief, “Florida’s hybrid system only provides additional