Capital Case Roundup — Death Penalty Court Decisions the Week of June 82020

NEWS (6/​11/​20) — Florida: The Florida Supreme Court applied new cas­es that retroac­tive­ly changed the law regard­ing claims of intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty and the uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of death sen­tences imposed after non-unan­i­mous jury votes for death to uphold the death sen­tences imposed on Alphonso Cave and Gary Lawrence.

Cave had been uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly sen­tenced to death three dif­fer­ent times. Twice his death sen­tence had been over­turned. He was sen­tenced to death a third time after a non-unan­i­mous jury vote under sen­tenc­ing pro­ce­dures the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in Hurst v. Florida in 2016. His direct appeal of that death sen­tence was denied in 1999. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that it is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al to exe­cute those with intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty. However, Florida uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly required proof that a pris­on­er have an IQ test score of 70 or below before he or she could be deemed intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that require­ment in Hall v. Florida in 2014 and the Florida Supreme Court sub­se­quent­ly ruled that it would apply Hall in all cas­es in which a defen­dant had time­ly raised an intel­lec­tu­al disability claim. 

Applying its January 23, 2020 deci­sion in State v. Poole, which retroac­tive­ly aban­doned pri­or case law requir­ing jury una­nim­i­ty, the court reject­ed Cave’s claim under Hurst. Applying its May 21 deci­sion in Phillips v. State, which aban­doned case prece­dent on the appli­ca­tion of Hall, the court refused to con­sid­er Cave’s intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty claim. Justice Jorge Labarga con­curred in the result but not the court’s reliance on retroac­tive changes of the law to achieve it. He would have denied relief on Cave’s Hurst claim because his direct appeal had already been decid­ed before the U.S. Supreme Court announced the prin­ci­ple on which Hurst was based. He would have refused to con­sid­er Cave’s Atkins claim because Cave had not assert­ed that he was intel­lec­tu­al­ly dis­abled dur­ing the 12 years between the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sions in Atkins and Hall.

The court had pre­vi­ous­ly denied Lawrence’s claim under Hurst because his non-unan­i­mous death sen­tence had become final on direct appeal before 2002. With Justice Labarga con­cur­ring in result only, it applied its change in the law under Phillips to refuse to con­sid­er Lawrence’s intel­lec­tu­al disability claim.


NEWS (6/​10/​20) — Virginia: In a defeat for exe­cu­tion trans­paren­cy, a Virginia fed­er­al dis­trict court has dis­missed a media law­suit that sought to require the state to allow wit­ness­es to observe the entire exe­cu­tion process. After the botched exe­cu­tion of Ricky Gray, in which the exe­cu­tion team strug­gled to set the intra­venous exe­cu­tion line, the Commonwealth revised its exe­cu­tion pro­ce­dures to delay open­ing the cur­tain to the exe­cu­tion cham­ber until after the IV-line has been set. The Richmond Times-Dispatch, Guardian News, the Associated Press, and Gannett media sued to require that exe­cu­tion wit­ness be able to observe that pro­ce­dure and oth­er parts of the exe­cu­tion the state has kept secret.