Hurst v. Florida (14-7505)

argument 14-7505

Hurst v. Florida

Supreme Court of the United States 59 min 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What constitutional issue does Hurst v. Florida raise about the Sixth Amendment?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument next in Case 14-7505, Hurst v. Florida. Mr. Waxman.

David Boies 0:07

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, under Florida law, Timothy Hurst will go to his death despite the fact that a judge, not a jury, made the factual finding that rendered him eligible for death. That violates the Sixth Amendment under Ring. In Florida and Florida alone, What authorizes imposition of the death penalty is a finding of fact by the court of an aggravating factor, a finding that the trial judge makes independently and, quote, notwithstanding the jury's recommendation as to sentence. Now, the State here contends that that capital sentencing juries make implicit findings that satisfy the Sixth Amendment under Ring, which the trial judge then simply ratifies. That is wrong. Whatever the jury's recommendation might imply about the specified aggravating factors, the Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the notion that the jury's verdict is anything other than advisory.

David Boies 1:20

Florida law entrusts the factual findings of aggravators to the judge alone who may do so on the basis of evidence that the jury never heard and aggravators that the jury was never presented with.

Kathryn Hackett King 1:35

Is there ever a case in which the jury found aggravators and recommended the death sentence and the judge reversed that

David Boies 1:44

finding? There may well be. This is principally a case about the finding of death eligibility, not sentence selection. I mean,

Kathryn Hackett King 1:54

either way, is there ever a case in which the jury did not find an aggravating circumstance but the judge did?

David Boies 2:02

Well, we don't ever know what the jury found about any of the specified aggravating circumstances. The only thing that the jury tells the judge is we recommend life slash death by a vote of X versus Y. Right, but they

Kathryn Hackett King 2:16

can't recommend death unless they find the aggravator,

David Boies 2:19

right? Well, no. No. As a matter of state law, that's not correct. They can't recommend death unless seven of them each believe that some aggravator is satisfied. All right. But the Florida Supreme Court, and this is another ring problem here, the Florida Supreme Court has recognized that where two aggravators are presented, it is impossible to know even if a simple majority agreed on a single aggravator.

John G. Roberts 2:48

Well, that's a common feature, though, of jury deliberations. Let's say an aggravator is whether the murder is particularly heinous, and it can be for for a number of factors. One, the victim is a juvenile. So maybe three jurors find that. Or an officer was also killed. Or it was in the course of another felony. In a typical case of finding that the murder was heinous, you have no idea whether the jury as a whole made that determination or if there were 12 different reasons.

David Boies 3:21

Mr. Chief Justice. Florida is the only state, the only death penalty state, and therefore the only state, that does not require or permit the jury to be told that it has to agree, and in all other states it's unanimous, but cannot even be told that a majority agrees. have to agree as to the existence of one of the specifying — MR. Well, but isn't that true —

John G. Roberts 3:49

I mean, taking it even out of the death penalty context, that's true with every jury determination. You could have the jury determining that the — you know, the person didn't commit the offense because his alibi was good or because, you know, somebody else did it or any number of 12 different reasons that they think he was not guilty. It doesn't have to be agreement by the jury on the particular basis for their verdict.

David Boies 4:21

We're talking here, Mr. Chief Justice, about elements of the crime. And as this Court explained in Ring, the existence of a statutory aggravating factor is an element of a death-eligible crime. And can anybody imagine a world where which would be the analog in Florida, if the jury at the guilt innocence phase of any trial, a shoplifting trial, were told, now look, I'm the one who will decide whether the defendant is or isn't guilty as a matter of law and eligible for punishment, but I'd like your input. on whether you think each of the specified elements is or isn't satisfied.