Home » Take Action » Become a Student Activist » Case of the Month Archives » December 2002
Legal Issues
Throughout U.S. history, the constitutionality of the death penalty has teeter-tottered. Before the 1960s, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were interpreted as permitting the death penalty. However, in 1958, following a decision in the Trop v. Dulles case, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed that the nation had evolved so that its "standard of decency" should no longer tolerate the state's imposition of the penalty of death. In the early 1960s it was also argued that the death penalty constituted "cruel and unusual" punishment, thus unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
But it wasn't until 1972 that the Supreme Court, in Furman v. Georgia, decided that the death penalty was imposed with such arbitrariness that it violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. This decision commuted (changed the sentence from death penalty to life imprisonment) for 629 death row inmates in the U.S. and suspended the death penalty. Leading the way, Florida swiftly rewrote its death penalty statutes in only five months. These new statutes attempted to eliminate the arbitrariness in capital punishment sentencing by providing sentencing guidelines to the judge and jury. Florida's newly proposed sentencing guidelines also allowed for aggravating circumstances to be considered when deciding whether to impose death. In 1976 the Supreme Court decided in Proffitt v. Florida that the rewritten statutes were constitutional, hence reinstating the death penalty.
Now, due to a case in Arizona, the U.S. is once again questioning the fundamental legality of the death penalty. The debate is over the case of Timothy Ring (Ring v. Arizona), who was convicted of murdering the driver of an armored car and sentenced to death in 1994. Although the jury sentenced Ring to life imprisonment, the judge overruled the jury and imposed the death penalty. This jury vs. judge contradiction was based on an accomplice's testimony during a separate sentencing hearing that the jury did not hear. At that hearing, the accomplice testified that Ring not only planned the murder, but wanted to be "congratulated" afterwards. The judge ruled that these aggravating circumstances warranted the issuance of the death penalty.
In June, the Supreme Court found Arizona's capital sentencing law unconstitutional because it allowed a judge to find those aggravating circumstances necessary to impose the death penalty. The High Court ruled that the principle that one has a right to be tried by a jury of one's peers requires that juries, not judges, must make the crucial decisions on whether a convicted killer lives or dies.
But the U.S. Supreme Court failed to address the legality of so-called "hybrid" systems such as Florida's where the judge, like in Arizona, also makes the final decision. The difference in Florida is that the jury makes a recommendation based on aggravating circumstances. In both states, the judge can then overrule a jury's decision and make the final determination whether the inmate lives or dies.
In late October, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the state's death penalty system is, in fact, constitutional, turning down appeals by death row inmates Linroy Bottoson and Amos Lee King, both of whom appealed their sentences on the basis of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona.
Just weeks after the Florida Supreme Court issued its decision, Gov. Jeb Bush set death sentences for Bottoson and King. They are set for execution in early December, but their attorneys have filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to stop the executions. They are also asking the High Court to consider whether Florida's death-penalty law is constitutional. Although the two systems are not identical, a decision by the Supreme Court to review Florida's system could have serious implications in Florida, possibly raising questions about the need to reform the state's entire death penalty system.
Several high profile death penalty cases in Florida illustrate that the "system" is broken. Both cases discussed here resulted in exonerations; however, the men who were freed of blame spent a good deal of their lives on death row.
Frank Lee Smith, who was convicted of a 1985 rape and murder of an 8-year-old girl in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, died of cancer in January 2000 while still on death row. Smith's conviction and death sentence were based solely on the testimony that Smith had been in the neighborhood around the time of the murder. There were no eyewitnesses, no blood, and no physical evidence. Although scheduled for execution in January 1990, Smith won a stay. Shortly thereafter, a defense team investigator realized that another man was a suspect in a number of rapes and murders that also had occurred in the victim's neighborhood. Four years after the conviction, the original testimony used against Smith was recanted and the Florida Supreme Court ordered a trial judge to hold an evidentiary hearing. DNA material from Smith's case was admitted and the Court linked the murder to the other suspect. The witness who helped to convict Smith expressed her remorse, "This is an innocent person that been to jail. This man did not do this, and I feel so bad, so guilty, so ashamed." Smith spent the last 14 years of his life on death row where he died an innocent man.
Another Florida death penalty case that raises questions of constitutionality is Juan Roberto Melendez, convicted and sentenced to death in 1984 for a murder in Polk County, FL. Melendez spent nearly 18 years on death row before being exonerated of the crime. Similar to Smith's case, Melendez's case contained no physical evidence that connected him to the murder, rather his conviction and death sentence hinged on the testimony of two people. The jury, however, did not get to hear crucial evidence that might have undermined the credibility of each of these witnesses. In 2001 Florida Circuit Court Judge Barbara Fleischer ordered a new trial for Melendez based on newly discovered evidence and the ineffective assistance of defense counsel. "Without knowledge of and access to the suppressed evidence, the defendant did not receive a fair trial," the judge wrote. She also pointed out that when everything is added up, confidence in Melendez's sentence and conviction is undermined. After Fleischer's ruling, prosecutors dropped all charges against Melendez.
Although prosecutors have a duty to disclose information, even if it is favorable to the defense, they sometimes fail to do so. This raises concerns regarding the methods, procedures, and motives of law enforcement. As Melendez's attorney states, "The system is not premised on the notion that the prosecutor wants to win, but that he wants justice to be done. The way this was done is not consistent with that notion." Some Judges and politicians have also adopted this over- zealous attitude, particularly if they are up for re-election and want to take a "tough on crime" stance.
Another consideration our capital punishment system faces is compensation for those wrongly convicted. On average, an exonerated person spends eight years on death row. When the innocent person is released, they most likely will not receive any type of compensation from the state. Carl Earl Lawson, exonerated in Illinois in 1996, expressed his disappointment after release: "They took away everything and want me to move on with my life. I have nothing to move on to." For most of those exonerated, almost a decade has passed since they were free. What do you think has happened to their job skills, viability in the marketplace, and money to start a new life? The State's admission of error and release of the innocent prisoner are not enough.
The Liebman Study, conducted by Columbia University, also indicates there are serious flaws in capital punishment. This study analyzed death sentence error and reversal rates during the period from 1973 to 1995. According to this recent study, the overall reversal rate in the U.S. capital punishment system is 68%. This figure was derived from reviewing reversals in the three-stage judicial inspection process that death penalty cases undergo. A case is considered flawed if the reviewing court finds error that "seriously undermined the reliability of the outcome or otherwise 'harmed' the defendant." The most common types of error are ineffective defense counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Other types of errors include inaccurate testimony by witnesses and scientific experts, DNA evidence, and police misconduct. Astonishingly, after the cases that were found to be wrongly decided were retried, 82% of them were given a sentence less than death or no sentence at all. In fact, 7% of these cases were found not guilty.
Another finding of the Liebman study shows that disparities in death penalty convictions are often based on geography. Depending on which state the crime is committed in, the possibility for death sentence error may vary considerably. Currently, 13 states do not even use a capital punishment system. Ranking first in number of exonerations, Florida has been forced to release 24 death row inmates due to evidence of their innocence. Among other states with over 100 people on death row, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Arizona, and California have overall error rates of 75% or higher. Law professor Franklin E. Zimring, of the University of California at Berkeley stated, "if you've been sentenced to death, your odds of error-finding in a state appellate court vary from 1 in 10 to 9 in 10."
Lastly, the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty system must be considered. In 1999, in Brennan v. State, the Florida Supreme Court interpreted our Florida Constitution to prohibit the death penalty for 16-year-old offenders. But on November 5, 2002, Florida voters overwhelming approved a constitutional amendment that gives the state permission to execute 16-year-old offenders. The U.S. Supreme Court already affirmed its approval of the execution of 16-year-old offenders. This constitutional amendment now directs the Florida Supreme Court to follow the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court. That means whatever the federal high court does with regard to standards for the imposition of death sentences, Florida courts must follow. But, the minimum age for executions varies from state to state. With 31 death sentences for juveniles, Florida is second in the nation. In fact, Florida (31) combined with Texas (56) and Alabama (18) have accounted for over half of all juvenile executions in the U.S. Similar to the profile for adult death sentences, two-thirds of offenders are minorities, all are male, and three-quarters of the victims are white.
