A House panel Tuesday approved proposed changes to the state’s death-penalty law in an effort to address a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Florida’s capital-sentencing structure as unconstitutional.
The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee’s 11-2 vote on the measure (PCB CRJS 16-07) came less than two hours after the Florida Supreme Court issued an indefinite stay of execution for Cary Michael Lambrix, who had been scheduled to die on Feb. 11. The court heard oral arguments in the case Tuesday morning.
Lawmakers in both chambers are hurriedly preparing legislation in response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, issued on the opening day of the 2016 session, in a case known as Hurst v. Florida.
The Jan. 12 ruling overturned the state’s capital felony sentencing system, which gives judges — and not juries — the power to impose the death penalty.
The 8-1 decision focused on what are known as “aggravating” circumstances that must be determined before defendants can be sentenced to death.
A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in a case known as Ring v. Arizona, requires that determination of such aggravating circumstances be made by juries, not judges.
Under Florida law, juries make recommendations regarding the death penalty, based on a review of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, but judges ultimately decide whether defendants should be put to death or sentenced to life in prison.
The House would allow death sentences to be imposed only if juries — after weighing aggravating and mitigating factors — unanimously decide at least one aggravating factor exists.
The proposal would also require at least nine jurors to vote for the death penalty. The legislation is based on the recommendations of prosecutors.
Of the 31 states with the death penalty, Florida is one of only three that do not require unanimous jury decisions about imposing death sentences.
Florida law only requires a simple majority of the jury to recommend death. The only other two states that do not require unanimous decisions — Alabama and Delaware — require at least nine jurors to vote in favor of capital punishment.
Whether death-penalty jury verdicts should be unanimous has been a major source of debate during discussions about the Hurst ruling, which did not specifically address the issue.
Nearly all experts, with the exception of prosecutors, recommend the state adopt a unanimous jury requirement to avoid the risk that Florida’s sentencing system could be struck down again in the future.
But prosecutor Brad King argued the measure goes “well beyond the dictates” of the Supreme Court’s order. And King, the state attorney for the 5th Judicial Circuit, said it is impossible to predict how the court will rule in years to come.
Requiring unanimous decisions on death-penalty sentences would allow a single juror “to hold hostage the entire process,” King argued, pointing out some of Florida’s most notorious crimes failed to result in unanimous jury recommendations for the death penalty.
But University of Miami Law Professor Scott Sundby, who trains Florida judges in the death penalty, said research shows 92 percent of juries that voted 9-3 in favor of the death penalty returned the same result if required to reach a unanimous decision.
Not requiring a unanimous decision would put Florida in danger of having its law struck down again, he predicted.
“I promise you this would invite a lot of constitutional litigation, and the odds of it being reversed by the (U.S.) Supreme Court are quite high,” Sundby told the committee.