Capital Case Roundup — Death Penalty Court Decisions the Week of June 222020

NEWS (6/​26/​20) — California: A California tri­al judge has accept­ed the January 29 rec­om­men­da­tion by a Tulare County jury to sen­tence Hernan Rodriguez to death. The death sen­tence is the 12th DPIC is aware of so far in 2020, and only the sec­ond since mid-March, when the coro­n­avirus pan­dem­ic sus­pend­ed most court pro­ceed­ings in cap­i­tal cases nationwide. 

NEWS (6/​25/​20) — Florida: In a pair of unsigned opin­ions, the Florida Supreme Court has upheld the cap­i­tal sen­tences of two more death-row prisoners.

On direct appeal, the court upheld the death sen­tence imposed on Angel Santiago-Gonzalez, who plead­ed guilty to a 2016 prison mur­der and then waived his right to a jury sen­tenc­ing. In a post-con­vic­tion rul­ing in a pair of 1984 killings, the court upheld the death sen­tences imposed by tri­al courts on Duane Owen after sen­tenc­ing juries failed to reach unan­i­mous sentencing recommendations.

NEWS (6/​23/​20) — Ohio: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has denied Ohio death row pris­on­er Romell Brooms habeas cor­pus chal­lenge to the state’s efforts to attempt to car­ry out his exe­cu­tion a sec­ond time. Ohio unsuc­cess­ful­ly attempt­ed to exe­cute Broom on September 15, 2009, call­ing off the exe­cu­tion after prison per­son­nel failed for two hours to estab­lish an intra­venous execution line.

The Sixth Circuit upheld the Ohio state courts’ rejec­tion of Broom’s claim that a sec­ond exe­cu­tion attempt would vio­late his Fifth Amendment pro­tec­tion against twice being placed in jeop­ardy of life for the same offense and the Eighth Amendment pro­hi­bi­tion against cru­el and unusu­al pun­ish­ment. The fed­er­al appeals court said that no clear­ly estab­lished U.S. Supreme Court case law pre­vent­ed a sec­ond execution attempt. 

NEWS (6/​22/​20) — Florida: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has affirmed a Florida dis­trict court deci­sion deny­ing Juan Rodriguezs habeas cor­pus chal­lenge to his con­vic­tion and death sentence.

The appeals court ruled that the Florida courts had not unrea­son­ably applied clear­ly estab­lished U.S. Supreme Court law when they reject­ed Rodriguez’s intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty claim using a stan­dard the Court lat­er explic­it­ly declared uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. It also denied Rodriguez’s claim that his penal­ty-phase coun­sel was inef­fec­tive, rul­ing that he had not proven that coun­sel’s fail­ure to present avail­able mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence was prejudicial.