Florida Capital Sentencing Juries Return Four Life Verdicts in Two Weeks

In the span of two weeks, juries in four unre­lat­ed cas­es in which Florida pros­e­cu­tors had sought the death penal­ty have instead returned life sen­tences. The cas­es — which were con­sid­ered prob­a­ble death ver­dicts if judges were per­mit­ted to impose sen­tence — illus­trate the impact of the changes in Florida law in 2016 and 2017 ban­ning judi­cial death sen­tences based on non-unan­i­mous jury rec­om­men­da­tions for death. Between June 27, 2019 and July 11, 2019, jurors in the cas­es of Jose Martinez, Karari Ritchie, Christopher Vasata, and Scott Nelson did not unan­i­mous­ly agree on a rec­om­mend­ed sen­tence. As a result, all four cas­es end­ed in life sentences.

Between 2010 and 2015, the three states that per­mit­ted judges to impose death sen­tences based on non-unan­i­mous jury sen­tenc­ing rec­om­men­da­tions — Florida, Alabama, and Delaware — account­ed for more than a quar­ter of all the death sen­tences imposed in the United States. More than three-quar­ters of the death sen­tences imposed in those states involved non-unan­i­mous jury sen­tenc­ing rec­om­men­da­tions. However, in 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Florida’s judi­cial sen­tenc­ing pro­ce­dures and lat­er that year, the Florida and Delaware Supreme Courts declared that death sen­tences based on non-unan­i­mous jury sen­tenc­ing votes were uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. The Florida leg­is­la­ture sub­se­quent­ly amend­ed its cap­i­tal sen­tenc­ing pro­ce­dures to require a unan­i­mous jury rec­om­men­da­tion for death before the tri­al judge may impose a death sen­tence and new death sen­tences imposed in the state have since dropped from an aver­age of 16.7 per year in the first half of the 2010s to an aver­age of 4.3 per year in 2016 through 2018.

The four cas­es show that juries do not auto­mat­i­cal­ly impose death even in high­ly aggra­vat­ed cas­es. Jose Martinez was a drug-car­tel hit­man who con­fessed to killing more than three dozen peo­ple over the course of 30 years. Already sen­tenced to life impris­on­ment in California, Ocala, Florida pros­e­cu­tors asked the jury if the death penal­ty was not appro­pri­ate for Martinez, then ​“when is it appro­pri­ate?” Martinez’s lawyers pre­sent­ed mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence of his vio­lent­ly dys­func­tion­al back­ground, includ­ing that he was a child of incest result­ing from his moth­er being raped by her uncle, evi­dence from trau­ma experts about the effects of his upbring­ing, evi­dence of brain dam­age he sus­tained from a head injury, and tes­ti­mo­ny from 20 out-of-state fam­i­ly mem­bers describ­ing how he took beat­ings to pro­tect them and attempt­ed to pro­vide for them when oth­ers in the fam­i­ly would not. On June 27, his jury vot­ed for life. 

Also on June 27, Christopher Vasata was sen­tenced to life in Palm Beach County for a 2017 Super Bowl Sunday triple mur­der, after jurors did not unan­i­mous­ly agree on his sen­tence. Prosecutors had argued for death because, it said, Vasata’s ​“intent to kill was so strong and so thought out.” ​“This wasn’t a rob­bery gone bad,” the pros­e­cu­tor said. ​“This wasn’t, ​‘I pan­icked and acci­den­tal­ly hit the trig­ger, I didn’t mean to kill him.’ This was a planned hit.” 

On June 28, Broward County jurors spared the life of Karari Ritchie, whom they had con­vict­ed of rob­bing and stab­bing 86 times a Taco Bell man­ag­er who had served Ritchie and his broth­er drinks before the restau­rant offi­cial­ly opened. Although the jury found the mur­der of Tikkitress Johnson — whom pros­e­cu­tors stressed was a wife and moth­er, was ​“espe­cial­ly heinous, atro­cious and cru­el”— it took less than two hours to sen­tence him to life after hear­ing mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence of the chron­ic child abuse and neglect he expe­ri­enced in a house­hold in which his moth­er told him she wished she had abort­ed him. ​“We believe his life has val­ue,” Ritchie’s lawyer told the jury. ​“Mercy is not earned. It is given.” 

And on July 11, Scott Nelson — who told the jury he was ​“a homi­ci­dal mani­ac” who want­ed to be sen­tenced to death — received a life sen­tence after an Orange County jury did not reach a unan­i­mous ver­dict. Defense lawyers pre­sent­ed mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence of the chron­ic trau­ma he expe­ri­enced in an abu­sive child­hood and the severe cog­ni­tive deficits its pro­duced, the extreme con­di­tions to which he was sub­ject­ed dur­ing 25 years in fed­er­al prison, and his result­ing men­tal ill­ness. One juror was removed from the jury after some oth­er jurors report­ed he had said he had seen no evi­dence in the case jus­ti­fy­ing a death sen­tence. Three jurors lat­er report­ed that a sin­gle remain­ing juror had vot­ed for life.