A recent op-ed in the Miami Herald by Raoul Cantero (pic­tured), for­mer Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, called for state leg­is­la­tors to require una­nim­i­ty in the penal­ty phase of death penal­ty tri­als. Five years ago, a study con­duct­ed by the American Bar Association found that Florida was an out­lier in allow­ing cap­i­tal juries to find aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances and rec­om­mend death sen­tences by a sim­ple major­i­ty. The op-ed, co-writ­ten by Mark Schlakman, a mem­ber of the ABA’s Florida Death Penalty Assessment team, high­light­ed that there have been more death row exon­er­a­tions in Florida than any oth­er state. The authors said the bill would help to ensure that the death penal­ty is reserved for the most heinous crimes.“ The writ­ers con­clud­ed, Regardless of … one’s views on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, main­tain­ing the sta­tus quo and there­by Florida’s out­lier sta­tus in this coun­try does not serve the cause of jus­tice.” Read full op-ed below.

Florida ignores unan­i­mous jury’ leg­is­la­tion in death penal­ty cas­es at its per­il

Challenging the sta­tus quo to pro­mote fair­ness and impar­tial­i­ty in our jus­tice sys­tem can be both a virtue and an exer­cise in frustration.

When Florida’s death penal­ty process is at issue, even the most stal­wart advo­cates for improve­ments in the admin­is­tra­tion of jus­tice tend to shy away from the chal­lenge, claim­ing that the tim­ing isn’t right, that they don’t want to risk being brand­ed as soft on crime or insen­si­tive to vic­tims’ issues, or that they don’t want to under­mine their larg­er agen­das by association.

Moreover, the Florida Bar Foundation, which had played an instru­men­tal role in advanc­ing death penal­ty process reform efforts, is less inclined to sup­port such projects today giv­en its deplet­ed discretionary funding.

The alarm­ing back­drop is that the Death Penalty Information Center, an inde­pen­dent Washington, D.C.-based non­prof­it orga­ni­za­tion, reports that since 1973, Florida has reversed more death sen­tences than any other state.

Frank Lee Smith was exon­er­at­ed posthu­mous­ly after the actu­al per­pe­tra­tor was iden­ti­fied. He died from can­cer after lan­guish­ing on death row for 14 years. Juan Melendez was exon­er­at­ed after almost 18 years on death row when a taped con­fes­sion by the real per­pe­tra­tor was dis­cov­ered. Reasonable peo­ple may dis­agree about the mer­it, effi­ca­cy and moral­i­ty of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, but all should agree that the process must be fair, impar­tial and as time­ly as possible.

5 years ago, the American Bar Association released a com­pre­hen­sive report devel­oped by a team of 8 Florida-based experts which includ­ed an elect­ed state attor­ney, a for­mer pub­lic defend­er and a for­mer Florida Supreme Court chief jus­tice that raised seri­ous con­cerns about Florida’s death penalty process.

One of the key find­ings notes that Florida is an out­lier inso­far as allow­ing cap­i­tal-case juries to find aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances and rec­om­mend a death sen­tence by a sim­ple major­i­ty, e.g., 7 – 5. All 33 oth­er death penal­ty states require some form of unanimity.

Some counter that if una­nim­i­ty had been required, con­vict­ed ser­i­al killers such as Ted Bundy and Aileen Wuornos wouldn’t have received death sen­tences because both penal­ty-phase jury delib­er­a­tions result­ed in 10 – 2 votes.

But that is not nec­es­sar­i­ly so. Had those juries been instruct­ed that una­nim­i­ty was required, the nature of the delib­er­a­tions would have changed, includ­ing con­ceiv­ably the vote, and while the judge is expect­ed to place great weight on a jury’s rec­om­men­da­tion, it is the judge who impos­es death sen­tences in Florida.

We may have reached a tipping point.

Sen. Thad Altman, R‑Melbourne, filed a bill in antic­i­pa­tion of the 2012 reg­u­lar ses­sion that would require una­nim­i­ty in future penal­ty phase jury delib­er­a­tions for both advi­so­ry rec­om­men­da­tions of death and find­ings regard­ing the pres­ence of aggra­va­tors, the basis for any death sen­tence. He expand­ed the scope of a unan­i­mous jury bill that he pre­vi­ous­ly filed to address issues raised in Evans, a recent case out of the Southern District in which U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez declared relat­ed aspects of Florida’s cap­i­tal case sen­tenc­ing scheme uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. The state has appealed.

Before Evans, the Florida Supreme Court in a 2005 opin­ion known as State v. Steele, had called upon the Legislature to revis­it Florida’s death penal­ty statute to require una­nim­i­ty for jury rec­om­men­da­tions of death. Then-Gov. Jeb Bush observed that the issue was def­i­nite­ly worth con­sid­er­a­tion” and cau­tioned leg­is­la­tors not to ignore the court.

The Legislature ignored the court.

Simply put, Altman’s bill would help to ensure that the death penal­ty is reserved for the most heinous crimes. It received strong edi­to­r­i­al sup­port from The Miami Herald and oth­er major Florida news­pa­pers as well as favor­able respons­es from certain prosecutors.

But the Legislature has vir­tu­al­ly ignored Altman’s bill as well.

A sim­i­lar but more nar­row­ly tai­lored unan­i­mous jury bill filed by Rep. John Patrick Julien, D‑North Miami Beach, is a poten­tial House com­pan­ion, and Sen. Oscar Braynon, D‑Miami Gardens, who filed the Senate com­pan­ion to Julien’s bill is a potential co-sponsor.

Legislative lead­er­ship seems to be falling prey to the notion that any change in Florida’s death penal­ty statute might result in unin­tend­ed con­se­quences and there­fore should be resist­ed, essen­tial­ly gam­bling that Evans will be reversed upon appeal.

If the state’s appeal is denied the con­se­quences of fail­ing to act would not be speculative.

Regardless of the out­come of the state’s appeal or one’s views on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, main­tain­ing the sta­tus quo and there­by Florida’s out­lier sta­tus in this coun­try does not serve the cause of jus­tice. States like Texas and Georgia, known for their pro-death penal­ty stance, require unan­i­mous juries. So should we.

Raoul Cantero is a for­mer jus­tice of the Florida Supreme Court appoint­ed by Gov. Jeb Bush. Mark R. Schlakman, senior pro­gram direc­tor for the Center for the Advancement of Human Rights at Florida State University, was a mem­ber of the ABA Florida Death Penalty Assessment.

(R. Cantero and M. Schlakman, Florida ignores unan­i­mous jury’ leg­is­la­tion in death penal­ty cas­es at its per­il,” Miami Herald, February 19, 2012). See Arbitrariness. Read more New Voices.

Citation Guide