Capital Case Roundup — Death Penalty Court Decisions the Week of September 142020

NEWS (9/​17/​20) — Florida: The Florida Supreme Court has denied post-con­vic­tion relief to Ken Lott, retroac­tive­ly apply­ing its new rule that a death sen­tence imposed under the state’s uncon­sti­tu­tion­al judi­cial fact-find­ing statute did not vio­late Lott’s right to a jury tri­al because the jury had unan­i­mous­ly found an aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stance. The court held that Lott’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury tri­al in his cap­i­tal sen­tenc­ing pro­ceed­ing extend­ed only to the deter­mi­na­tion of whether the defen­dant was eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty, not whether aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances out­weighed rea­sons to spare his life. 

Lott was sen­tenced to death in 1995 for first-degree mur­der. Although Lott’s indict­ment did not spec­i­fy any spe­cif­ic aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stance, the court ruled that Lott was not uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly sen­tenced to death because the jury had unan­i­mous­ly found that he had a pre­vi­ous con­vic­tion for assault, which is an aggra­vat­ing fac­tor under Florida law. The court had pre­vi­ous­ly denied Lott’s appeal of an order deny­ing him DNA test­ing of the evi­dence in his case.


NEWS (9/​16/​20) —Tennessee: A Shelby County tri­al court has ruled that Pervis Payne is enti­tled to DNA test­ing of phys­i­cal evi­dence in his case. Judge Paula Skahan autho­rized test­ing on sev­er­al items of phys­i­cal evi­dence that were with­held from the defense until 2019. District Attorney Amy Weirich, who opposed the motion, said she would not appeal the order. However, she plant­ed the seeds for an argu­ment that the pres­ence of some­one else’s DNA may be a prod­uct of con­t­a­m­i­na­tion, say­ing she ha[s] con­cerns that touch DNA has been deposit­ed on the items over the last 33 years since the mur­ders hap­pened.” The rul­ing may have an impact on Payne’s sched­uled December 3 execution date.


NEWS (9/​16/​20) — Texas: The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has over­turned the death sen­tence imposed on Mexican nation­al Juan Lizcano, find­ing that he is inel­i­gi­ble for the death penal­ty because of intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty. The court ini­tial­ly upheld Lizcano’s death sen­tence, impos­ing an uncon­sti­tu­tion­al stan­dard for assess­ing his intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty. After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the court’s approach in Moore v. Texas, the Texas appeals court returned Lizcano’s case to the tri­al court to recon­sid­er his intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty claim. The Texas Tribune reports that Lizcano is at least the sixth death row inmate whose sen­tence was reduced after the U.S. Supreme Court slammed Texas’ meth­ods for deter­min­ing intellectual disability.”