The Florida House moved forward Wednesday with a compromise plan as lawmakers seek to quickly address a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the state’s death penalty sentencing system.
The compromise, which House sponsors said has been worked out with the Senate, would resolve a critical issue that involves jury recommendations to judges in death penalty cases.
The Senate proposed requiring that juries make unanimous recommendations before judges can impose the death penalty, while the House proposed allowing 9-3 votes.
Under the compromise, juries could recommend death sentences in 10-2 votes. In the past, majorities of juries have been able to recommend execution, making Florida an outlier among states with the death penalty.
The House on Thursday is expected to pass a death-penalty bill (HB 7101) and send it to the Senate. House members approved an amendment Wednesday that included the compromise.
Supporters of the bill stressed the urgency in passing changes after the U.S. Supreme Court last month ruled that Florida’s death penalty sentencing structure was unconstitutional.
House Judiciary Chairman Charles McBurney, a Jacksonville Republican who proposed the compromise amendment, said Florida likely won’t have a death penalty unless lawmakers take action.
During discussion on the House floor Wednesday, McBurney and Rep. John Wood, R-Winter Haven, recounted emotional testimony last week from family members of murder victims — testimony that McBurney described as “gut wrenching.” Wood, at one point, asked whether the compromise would reflect justice.
“I think this is a workable solution,’’ said Rep. Ross Spano, a Dover Republican who is sponsoring the overall bill.
Rep. Joe Geller, D-Aventura, said he doesn’t like the death penalty but urged support for the compromise.
“I think this amendment moves us in the right direction toward justice,” Geller said.
The Supreme Court ruling, in a case known as Hurst v. Florida, found that the state’s system of giving judges — and not juries — the power to impose death sentences was an unconstitutional violation of defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.
The 8-1 decision dealt with the sentencing phase of death-penalty cases after defendants are found guilty and 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.
The House and Senate had already agreed before Wednesday on a change that would directly address the issue about aggravating circumstances.
That change would require jurors to unanimously find that at least one aggravating factor exists before a defendant can be eligible for a death sentence.
But much of the debate has focused on the recommendation that jurors would ultimately make if an aggravating factor is found.
That issue was not addressed in the Supreme Court ruling, but some death penalty experts urged lawmakers to move to requiring unanimous jury recommendations before judges could impose death sentences.
Those experts argued, in part, that such a move could help avoid future legal threats to the sentencing structure.
Prosecutors, however, pushed for a 9-3 threshold. They argued that requiring unanimous jury recommendations could allow lone jurors to prevent death sentences.