Florida Supreme Court Upholds Removal of Prosecutor From Death-Eligible Cases

The Florida Supreme Court has upheld Governor Rick Scott​’s (pic­tured, left) removal of Orange and Osceola County State Attorney Aramis Ayala (pic­tured, right) as pros­e­cu­tor in more than two dozen mur­der cas­es because of her offi­cial pol­i­cy not to seek to seek the death penal­ty. Over two dis­sents, the sev­en-mem­ber Court held that Scott had act­ed ​“well with­in the bounds of the Governor’s broad author­i­ty” when he replaced Ayala with Lake County State Attorney and death-penal­ty pro­po­nent Brad King in cas­es that could be eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty under Florida law. On March 16, Ayala — the first African American elect­ed as a Florida state attor­ney—announced that her office would not pur­sue the death penal­ty in any homi­cide cas­es, say­ing the use of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment was ​“not in the best inter­ests of this com­mu­ni­ty or in the best inter­ests of jus­tice.” That day, Governor Scott issued an exec­u­tive order remov­ing her from the case of Markeith Loyd, charged in the killing of an Orlando police offi­cer, and appoint­ing King to pros­e­cute the case. He has since issued exec­u­tive orders remov­ing Ayala and appoint­ing King in at least 26 oth­er mur­der cas­es. Against a back­drop of racial dis­crim­i­na­tion, Ayala—sup­port­ed by the Florida Legislative Black Caucus and a group of lawyers, legal experts, and retired judges—argued that Scott’s action was a pow­er grab that threat­ened the auton­o­my of local­ly elect­ed pros­e­cu­tors to exer­cise their dis­cre­tion in charg­ing and sen­tenc­ing prac­tices. The court flat­ly reject­ed that argu­ment, say­ing that ​“adopt­ing a blan­ket pol­i­cy against the impo­si­tion of the death penal­ty is in effect refus­ing to exer­cise dis­cre­tion and tan­ta­mount to a func­tion­al veto” of Florida’s death-penal­ty law. The two women on the court, Justice Barbara Pariente, joined by Justice Peggy A. Quince, dis­sent­ed. Justice Pariente wrote: ​“This case is about the inde­pen­dence of duly elect­ed State Attorneys to make law­ful deci­sions with­in their respec­tive juris­dic­tions as to sen­tenc­ing and allo­ca­tion of their offices’ resources, free from inter­fer­ence by a Governor who dis­agrees with their deci­sions.” Ayala’s deci­sion ​“not seek a sen­tence that pro­duces years of appeals and end­less con­sti­tu­tion­al chal­lenges and impli­cates decades of sig­nif­i­cant jurispru­den­tial devel­op­ments,” she wrote ​“was well with­in the scheme cre­at­ed by the Legislature and with­in the scope of deci­sions State Attorneys make every day on how to allo­cate their offices’ lim­it­ed resources.” Governor Scott hailed the deci­sion as ​“a great vic­to­ry.” Shortly after­wards, Ayala issued a state­ment say­ing she respects the rul­ing and announc­ing the for­ma­tion of a death penal­ty review pan­el that will eval­u­ate first-degree mur­der cas­es and rec­om­mend whether to seek the death penal­ty. ​“With imple­men­ta­tion of this Panel,” the state­ment said, ​“it is my expec­ta­tion that going for­ward all first-degree mur­der cas­es that occur in my juris­dic­tion will remain in my office and be eval­u­at­ed and prosecuted accordingly.”

G. Tziperman Lotan, Supreme Court rules against State Attorney Ayala on death penal­ty cas­es, Orlando Sentinel, August 31, 2017; G. Tziperman Lotan, ​“Ayala’s next steps depend on Scott’s treat­ment of review pan­el, attor­ney says,” Orlando Sentinel, August 31, 2017; K. Clark, ​“Florida Supreme Court backs Gov. Scott in Orlando death-penal­ty dis­pute,” Miami Herald, August 31, 2017.) See Florida and Sentencing.