State updates includ­ed on this page:

  • Arizona
  • Colorado (abol­ished the death penal­ty in 2020)
  • Delaware (abol­ished the death penal­ty in 2016)
  • Florida
  • Idaho
  • Indiana
  • Maryland (abol­ished the death penal­ty in 2013
  • Missouri
  • Nebraska
  • Nevada
  • New Jersey
  • New Mexico (2‑jury sys­tem, abol­ished the death penal­ty in 2009)
  • North Carolina
  • Federal

Arizona

First Ring Resentencing Reverses Original Sentence On September 24, 2004, the jury in the new sen­tenc­ing phase of Keith Phillips’ tri­al reversed the orig­i­nal jury’s death rec­om­men­da­tion and pre­sent­ed the judge with a life sen­tence. Phillips is the first of the ​“Ring 30” to be resen­tenced under the Ringdeci­sion by the U. S. Supreme Court. (Arizona Republic, October 4, 2004)

Ring Not Retroactive The Arizona Supreme Court held that the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona does not apply retroac­tive­ly to defen­dants whose cas­es have com­plet­ed their direct appeal. (State v. Towery, No. CR-02 – 0031-PC (2003)). Arizona has about 90 such pris­on­ers on death row whose sen­tences are final and who were sen­tenced under the scheme found uncon­sti­tu­tion­al by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ring.

Federal Appeals Court Considers Retroactivity of Ring A fed­er­al appeals’ court has agreed to decide the case of Arizona death row inmate Warren Summerlin. In Summerlin v. Stewart (No. 98 – 99002), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide if the U.S. Supreme Court’s rul­ing in Ring v. Arizonaapplies retroac­tive­ly. In Ring, the Court held that crit­i­cal issues regard­ing sen­tenc­ing had to be decid­ed by juries, not judges, but the Court did not indi­cate whether the deci­sion applied retroac­tive­ly to inmates like Summerlin, whose case pre­ced­ed Ring. The Circuit Court’s deci­sion could impact pris­on­ers in Arizona, Montana and Idaho, which are with­in the Ninth Circuit. (Idaho Statesman, November 23, 2002).

Arizona Retroactivity The Arizona Supreme Court turned down appeals from 31 death row inmates who claimed that they are enti­tled to be resen­tenced in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona. The inmates, who have exhaust­ed their direct appeals, claimed that the high Court’s rul­ing that juries, not judges, should decide crit­i­cal sen­tenc­ing issues, man­dates that they be resen­tenced under new pro­ce­dures adopt­ed by the state leg­is­la­ture in light of Ring. Without com­ment, the state Supreme Court denied the inmates’ motions. The court will decide lat­er this year if the new pro­ce­dures will apply to inmates who have not exhaust­ed their direct appeals. (Arizona Daily Star, September 27, 2002)

Arizona Passes Possibly Flawed Legislation to Allow Jury Sentencing After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Arizona’s death penal­ty statute in Ring v. Arizona, the state leg­is­la­ture met in a spe­cial ses­sion to amend the state’s death penal­ty law to pro­vide that jurors, not judges, impose death sen­tences. The bill passed and was signed by Governor Jane Hull. However, an edi­to­r­i­al in the Tucson Citizen not­ed that, although the bill allows for jury sentencing:

The law allows sur­vivors of mur­der vic­tims to tell the jury whether they want the defen­dant sen­tenced to death. Attorney General Janet Napolitano told law­mak­ers that is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al and cit­ed a U.S. Supreme Court rul­ing supporting her.

The law also bars review of the jury’s sen­tence by the tri­al judge and lim­its review by the state Supreme Court. Both pro­vi­sions are like­ly to be challenged.(Tucson Citizen, edi­to­r­i­al, August 6, 2002) 

Colorado

Colorado abol­ished the death penal­ty in 2020.

Colorado Supreme Court Finds Three-Judge Panel Sentencing Unconstitutional The Colorado Supreme Court over­turned the death sen­tences of two men who were sen­tenced by three-judge pan­els. The Court held that a 1995 law set­ting up the three-judge pan­el sys­tem was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona. (Associated Press, February 24, 2003)

Lawmakers Reform Death Penalty Sentencing Statutes In a spe­cial ses­sion called by Governor Bill Owens after the Supreme Court’s rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona, Colorado law­mak­ers approved leg­is­la­tion to change the state’s death penal­ty statute to ensure its con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty. Colorado was pre­vi­ous­ly one of five states — includ­ing Arizona, Montana, Nebraska, and Idaho — where judges alone deter­mine whether the death penal­ty is appro­pri­ate. The reform bill returns the sen­tenc­ing deter­mi­na­tion in a cap­i­tal case from a 3‑judge pan­el to the tri­al jury for a unan­i­mous deter­mi­na­tion. (Associated Press, July 11, 2002). Governor Owens signed the bill into law.

Delaware

Delaware abol­ished the death penal­ty in 2016.

Delaware Court Halts Death Penalty Trials The President Judge of Delaware’s Superior Court has halt­ed all cap­i­tal mur­der tri­als and sen­tenc­ings until the state’s Supreme Court can con­sid­er the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of the Delaware’s death penal­ty. The court will review the Delaware cas­es and a new state law as they relate to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona. In Ring, the Supreme Court held that a death sen­tence vio­lates a defen­dan­t’s con­sti­tu­tion­al right to a tri­al by jury when the nec­es­sary aggra­vat­ing fac­tors must be deter­mined by a judge rather than a jury. Prior to Ring, Delaware jurors served in an advi­so­ry role dur­ing cap­i­tal cas­es, but state law now gives jurors sole author­i­ty to decide death eli­gi­bil­i­ty. (Associated Press, September 13, 2002)

Ring Decision Sparks Delaware Death Penalty Developments As a result of the Supreme Court’s recent deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona, the Delaware Supreme Court has ordered attor­neys in each of the 8 death penal­ty cas­es cur­rent­ly pend­ing before the court to sub­mit new briefs detail­ing how the Ring deci­sion affects their case. Prior to Ring, Delaware judges were asked to con­sid­er a jury’s rec­om­men­da­tion on the exis­tence of aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances but had the abil­i­ty to ulti­mate­ly find oth­er­wise. The Delaware Supreme Court order came just one day after the state’s leg­is­la­tors passed a bill giv­ing juries sole author­i­ty to unan­i­mous­ly deter­mine whether a defen­dant is eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty. (Associated Press, July 18, 2002) [Governor Ruth Ann Minner signed the bill into law].

Florida

Florida Rescinds Unanimous Jury Requirement in Death Sentencing

In April 2023, Florida passed leg­is­la­tion allow­ing a judge to impose death if at least eight out of twelve jurors agree. 

DPIC’s read­ing of the leg­is­la­tion indi­cates that, if a jury has not been waived:

  1. The jury MUST unan­i­mous­ly find, beyond a rea­son­able doubt, that at least one aggra­vat­ing fac­tor in the statute exists in the case. Otherwise, the defen­dant is not eli­gi­ble for the death penalty.
  2. If eli­gi­ble and the jury has at least 8 votes for a death sen­tence, the rec­om­men­da­tion MUST be for death. If there are less than 8 votes for death, the rec­om­men­da­tion MUST be for life without parole.
  3. If the jury’s rec­om­men­da­tion is for life with­out parole, the judge MUST impose that sentence.
  4. If the jury’s rec­om­men­da­tion is for death, the judge MAY impose that sen­tence or MAY impose a life sentence.

The judge must pro­vide a writ­ten order explain­ing how the sen­tence was arrived at, includ­ing rea­sons for reject­ing a jury’s rec­om­men­da­tion, if applicable.

Florida Revises Death Penalty Procedures

In March 2016, the Florida leg­is­la­ture direct­ly addressed Hurst v. Florida by requir­ing that jurors unan­i­mous­ly find any aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances that the pros­e­cu­tion seeks to prove to make the defen­dant eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty. It also mod­i­fied Florida’s sen­tenc­ing prac­tice by requir­ing that at least ten jurors rec­om­mend death before the judge may impose a death sentence.

Florida Supreme Court Urges Legislature to Initiate Unanimous Juries

In a recent opin­ion address­ing sev­er­al pro­ce­dur­al issues regard­ing the state’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment law, the Florida Supreme Court urged state leg­is­la­tors to require cap­i­tal jurors to be unan­i­mous in rec­om­mend­ing death sen­tences or at least in decid­ing what aggra­vat­ing fac­tors sup­port a death sen­tence. ​“The bot­tom line is that Florida is now the only state in the coun­try that allows the death penal­ty to be imposed even though the penal­ty-phase jury may deter­mine by a mere major­i­ty vote both whether aggra­va­tors exist and whether to rec­om­mend the death penal­ty.… The require­ment of a unan­i­mous ver­dict can only assist the cap­i­tal sen­tenc­ing jury in reach­ing such a rea­soned deci­sion,” wrote Justice Raoul Cantero for the court. Cantero also not­ed that many schol­ars and courts, includ­ing the U.S. Supreme Court, have con­clud­ed that unan­i­mous ver­dicts are impor­tant to the death sen­tenc­ing process. Currently in Florida, only judges can impose death sen­tences, but they are required by law to give great weight to rec­om­men­da­tions from juries. It takes a vote of 7 – 5 or greater to rec­om­mend death in a first-degree mur­der case. The only alter­na­tive is life in prison with­out parole. (Associated Press, October 12, 2005). See Florida v. Steele, No. SC04-802 (Oct. 12, 2005).

Florida Supreme Court Asked to Clarify Impact of Ring Decision

A District Court pan­el in Florida has endorsed a spe­cial ver­dict form that asks jurors to spec­i­fy what ele­ments of a crime war­rant a death penal­ty. The District Court cer­ti­fied its deci­sion as a mat­ter of great pub­lic impor­tance and asked the Florida Supreme Court to review the rul­ings, not­ing ​“this rul­ing could affect many cas­es that may ulti­mate­ly be reviewed by the Supreme Court.” In the orig­i­nal rul­ing in the cap­i­tal case against Alfredie Steele Jr., Pasco County Judge Lynn Tepper required the jury’s spe­cif­ic deci­sion to bring Florida’s law into com­pli­ance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona. In Ring , the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defen­dant is enti­tled to have the jury, not a judge, decide whether he or she is eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty. Some of the states pos­si­bly impact­ed by Ring, includ­ing Florida, have yet to for­mal­ly address how the deci­sion should affect court pro­ce­dures, leav­ing local judges to deliv­er rul­ings based on their own inter­pre­ta­tion of the law. (Miami Daily Business Review, April 29, 2004)

Florida Supreme Court Stays Executions to Review Constitutionality of State Death Penalty Statute; Later Rules Statute is Constitutional The Florida Supreme Court stayed two exe­cu­tions so that it could con­sid­er whether the state’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment law is con­sti­tu­tion­al in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Ring v. Arizona rul­ing. Florida is one of four states that per­mit­ted a judge to over­ride a jury rec­om­men­da­tion of a life sen­tence and impose death. The announce­ment came just hours before the sched­uled exe­cu­tion of Linroy Bottoson and two days before the sched­uled exe­cu­tion of Amos King. (The Washington Post, July 9, 2002). On October 24, 2002 Florida supreme court reject­ed Bottoson’s and King’s appeals, rul­ing that the state statute was con­sti­tu­tion­al despite the deci­sion in Ring. On December 9, 2002, Florida exe­cut­ed Linroy Bottoson. Amos King is sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed on February 26, 2003.

Idaho

Idaho Governor Signs Bill to Allow for Jury Sentencing In February 2003, Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne signed into law a bill that pro­vides for jury sen­tenc­ing in cap­i­tal cas­es. The new law, which shifts the respon­si­bil­i­ty of impos­ing the death penal­ty from judges to juries, was enact­ed in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona. It is unclear whether or not the new Idaho law will apply retroac­tive­ly. (Associated Press, February 14, 2003)

Idaho Lawmakers Pass New Death Penalty Sentencing Statutes On February 5, 2003, the Idaho leg­is­la­ture passed a bill pro­vid­ing for new sen­tenc­ing pro­ce­dures in cap­i­tal cas­es. The Idaho House and Senate over­whelm­ing­ly passed the bill, and Governor Dirk Kempthorne has indi­cat­ed that he will sign it. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona effec­tive­ly over­turned Idaho’s death penal­ty sen­tenc­ing statute, which then had pro­vid­ed for sen­tenc­ing deci­sions by the tri­al judge. The new leg­is­la­tion will apply the new sen­tenc­ing pro­ce­dure to the state’s cur­rent death row inmates if their sen­tences are over­turned because they were imposed by a judge. (Associated Press, February 5, 2003)

Idaho Supreme Court Voids Death Sentence in Light of Ring Decision The Idaho Supreme Court over­turned the death sen­tence of death row inmate Donald Fetterly in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona. The Idaho Court held that the Ring rul­ing appears to inval­i­date the death penal­ty scheme in Idaho. (Associated Press, August 7, 2002)

Indiana

Sentence of Life Without Parole Vacated On August 19, 2002, the Indiana Supreme Court vacat­ed Amy Bostick’s three sen­tences of life with­out parole. The Court held that Bostick’s sen­tences were uncon­sti­tu­tion­al under Ring v. Arizona because the tri­al judge, and not the jury, found that the state had proven the qual­i­fy­ing aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances for a sen­tence of life with­out parole beyond a rea­son­able doubt. Since the judge made this deci­sion after the jury failed to reach a unan­i­mous sen­tenc­ing rec­om­men­da­tion, the Court found that Bostick was sen­tenced beyond the max­i­mum term of impris­on­ment autho­rized by the jury’s ver­dict. The Indiana Supreme Court remand­ed her case to the tri­al court for resen­tenc­ing. (Bostick v. Indiana, 2002 Ind. LEXIS 657)

Maryland

Maryland abol­ished the death penal­ty in 2013.

Maryland State Supreme Court Ruling Allows Executions to Resume Maryland’s high­est court ruled that Ring v. Arizona does not inval­i­date the state’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment statute. The 4 – 3 deci­sion denied the con­tention of defen­dant Steven Oken that the state’s law was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. Oken’s appeal had cen­tered on how judges and juries con­sid­er whether defen­dants should be put to death. Maryland’s statute asks them to deter­mine by a pre­pon­der­ance of the evi­dence whether mit­i­gat­ing cir­cum­stances, such as an indi­vid­u­al’s age, out­weigh aggra­vat­ing fac­tors, such as motive. According to the Supreme Court’s Ring v. Arizona deci­sion, a stan­dard of ​“beyond a rea­son­able doubt” is required for cer­tain death penal­ty deci­sions. The state main­tained, and the court agreed, that Ring only applied at the point when a per­son­’s eli­gi­bil­i­ty for the death penal­ty was at issue. (Washington Post, November 18, 2003).

Maryland Court of Appeals Stays Executions to Review Constitutionality of State Death Penalty Statute The Maryland Court of Appeals issued a stay of exe­cu­tion in the case of Steven Oken, who was sched­uled to be exe­cut­ed the week of March 17, 2003. The stay, which will affect all Maryland death row inmates, came after Oken chal­lenged the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of the state’s cap­i­tal mur­der statute in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona. Oken chal­lenges that the cur­rent stan­dard of proof that pros­e­cu­tors are required to meet in ask­ing juries to vote for death sen­tences is too low. Currently, jurors need only find that aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances out­weigh mit­i­gat­ing cir­cum­stances by a ​“pre­pon­der­ance of the evi­dence.” Oken argues that the cor­rect stan­dard of proof should be ​“beyond a rea­son­able doubt,” rely­ing on the Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring. The Court of Appeals is expect­ed to hear argu­ments in May 2003. (Washington Post, February 12, 2003)

Missouri

Missouri Supreme Court Overturns Sentence, Citing Ring Decision The Missouri Supreme Court once again reduced a death sen­tence to life impris­on­ment with­out parole based on the 2002 U. S. Supreme Court rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona. Deandra Buchanan was orig­i­nal­ly sen­tenced to death by a Boone County Circuit judge when the tri­al jury was unable to agree on a pun­ish­ment. The Missouri Supreme Court referred to its 4 – 3 deci­sion in a pre­vi­ous case where they over­turned the death sen­tence for sim­i­lar rea­sons. The three judges who dis­sent­ed ear­li­er con­curred with the rul­ing in this case, cit­ing the result that had been estab­lished in the oth­er deci­sion. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 1, 2003)

Man whose death sen­tences were over­turned gets life in prison A Jackson County judge on Tuesday sen­tenced a dou­ble mur­der­er whose death sen­tences had been over­turned to life with­out parole. Circuit Judge Charles Atwell said recent U.S. Supreme Court and Missouri Supreme Court rul­ings made it impos­si­ble for pros­e­cu­tors to again seek death in the case against Lemoine Carter, 36, who had lived in Kansas City. The 2 high­er courts have ruled that juries and not judges must impose death sen­tences. In Carter’s case, anoth­er Jackson County judge imposed 2 death sen­tences in 1995 after a jury could not agree on whether to rec­om­mend death or life with­out parole. (Kansas City Star, September 17, 2003)

Supreme Court Rules that Ring is Retroactive The Missouri Supreme Court, by a 4 – 3 vote, held in SC77067 State of Missouri v. Joseph Whitfield, that Ring is retroac­tive and that the prop­er rem­e­dy is resen­tenc­ing to Life Without Parole, instead of a new sen­tenc­ing hear­ing. Read the Whitfield deci­sion. See also Life Without Parole.

Supreme Court Ruling Regarding Juries May Apply More Broadly Although Missouri has not been men­tioned as one of the nine states poten­tial­ly affect­ed by the Supreme Court’s rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona, some of its death sen­tences may be over­turned as a result of this rul­ing. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon has announced that the state will thor­ough­ly review the cas­es of its 68 death row inmates to ensure com­pli­ance with the Supreme Court’s recent rul­ing in Ring. Nixon not­ed that near­ly one of every six Missouri death row inmates were con­demned by a judge instead of a jury. Missouri law allows judges to impose death sen­tences in some instances, includ­ing when a jury that con­victs a defen­dant dead­locks about sen­tenc­ing. (Associated Press, June 26, 2002). Nevada also allows a pan­el of judges to make death sen­tenc­ing deci­sions in some cas­es. In Connecticut, a three-judge pan­el can decide on death sen­tences in re-sentencings.

Nebraska

Federal Judge Declares Electrocution Unconstitutional and Ring v. Arizona to be Retroactive In a deci­sion vacat­ing the death penal­ty for Nebraska death row inmate Charles Jess Palmer, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bataillon declared that elec­tro­cu­tion is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. Bataillon wrote, ​“In light of evi­dence and evolv­ing stan­dards of decen­cy, the court would find that a death penal­ty sen­tence imposed on a defen­dant in a state that pro­vides elec­tro­cu­tion as its only method of exe­cu­tion is an unnec­es­sary and wan­ton inflic­tion of pain.” Nebraska is the only state that main­tains elec­tro­cu­tion as its sole method of exe­cu­tion. Bataillon’s rul­ing also stat­ed that the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona — which held that it is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al to have a judge, rather than a jury, decide eli­gi­bil­i­ty for a death sen­tence — is retroac­tive and applies to Palmer’s case. The judge fur­ther decried the lengthy peri­od of time Palmer has spent on death row. Palmer remains incar­cer­at­ed with a sen­tence of life impris­on­ment. (Lincoln Journal Star, October 10, 2003) See Methods of Execution, and Life Without Parole. UPDATE: Nebraska adopt­ed lethal injec­tion as its method of exe­cu­tion in 2009.

Nebraska Supreme Court Rules Ring Not Applicable for a Case That Completed Direct Appeal On July 11, 2003, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled in State v. John Lotter that Ring v. Arizona would not be applied to a case that had com­plet­ed direct appeal and was on post­con­vic­tion review. The opin­ion fol­lowed a stan­dard Teague v. Lane analy­sis and is avail­able here.

Nebraska Passes Legislation to Allow Jury Determination of Aggravating Factor During a spe­cial ses­sion of the Nebraska leg­is­la­ture, mem­bers enact­ed a bill that attempts to bring the state’s law into com­pli­ance with the Supreme Court’s rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona. The bill requires that a jury find beyond a rea­son­able doubt that a crime meets one of the state’s nine aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances before a death sen­tence is imposed. The leg­is­la­tion was word­ed to apply retroac­tive­ly to crimes com­mit­ted ear­li­er but which have not come to tri­al. The new law also requires a 3‑judge sen­tenc­ing pan­el to con­duct a pre-sen­tenc­ing inves­ti­ga­tion in which oth­er neg­a­tive infor­ma­tion about the defen­dant may be intro­duced. The 3‑judge pan­el must be unan­i­mous in order to sen­tence an inmate to death. Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns signed the changes into law. (Lincoln Journal Star, November 24, 2002).

Special Legislative Session Called to Change Invalid Death Penalty Law; State Supreme Court to Consider Interim Procedures District Judge Robert Ensz ruled that pros­e­cu­tors could not seek the death penal­ty against Nazario Robles, a defen­dant in a Madison County mur­der tri­al. Judge Ensz ruled that Nebraska’s death penal­ty pro­ce­dure is ren­dered uncon­sti­tu­tion­al by the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona. In Nebraska, juries deter­mine the guilt or inno­cence of the defen­dant, but judges are respon­si­ble for deter­min­ing the sen­tence. Governor Mike Johanns has called a spe­cial leg­isla­tive ses­sion start­ing November 7 to change the state’s death penal­ty laws. In the mean­time, pros­e­cu­tors are ask­ing that jurors be allowed to ren­der ​“spe­cial ver­dicts” that would per­mit them to deter­mine eli­gi­bil­i­ty for the death penal­ty if they found a defen­dant guilty. Judges could then sen­tence the defen­dant to death if the jury found the nec­es­sary aggra­vat­ing fac­tors. Defense lawyers argue that such a process would be con­trary to state law. On November 5, the Nebraska Supreme Court will hear argu­ments to decide if Nebraska can con­tin­ue to sen­tence peo­ple to death using ​“spe­cial ver­dicts,” or if pros­e­cu­tors will have to wait until after the leg­is­la­ture changes the laws to pur­sue death penal­ty cas­es. (Associated Press, October 17, 2002)

Nebraska Supreme Court Asked to Review Death Penalty Policy Nebraska Attorney General Don Stenberg has asked the state’s Supreme Court to decide whether Nebraska can con­tin­ue sen­tenc­ing peo­ple to death despite the recent U.S. Supreme Court rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona. In Nebraska, judges or juries can deter­mine a defen­dan­t’s guilt or inno­cence, but only judges have hand­ed down death sen­tences since state law­mak­ers decid­ed in the 1970s that there was the poten­tial of bias by juries. Stenberg con­tends that since state law says a judge or a jury must sen­tence cap­i­tal defen­dants, jurors could be asked whether pros­e­cu­tors proved any aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances that are required to issue a death sen­tence. This ​“spe­cial ver­dict” would then allow judges to sen­tence defen­dants based on the jury’s find­ings. While spe­cial ver­dicts are used in Nebraska civ­il cas­es, defense attor­neys have argued that a 1982 deci­sion by the Nebraska Supreme Court found that ​“spe­cial ver­dicts” are not applic­a­ble to crim­i­nal pros­e­cu­tions. (Associated Press, July 16, 2002).

Nevada

Nevada Governor Kenny Guinn signed a bill that bans the use of 3‑judge pan­els in decid­ing death sen­tences. Instead, if the jury is divid­ed between a life or death sen­tence, the tri­al judge may either impan­el a new jury or impose a life with­out parole sen­tence. (Associated Press, June 9, 2003)

Nevada Supreme Court Overturns Sentence Imposed by a Three Judge Panel In December 2002, the Nevada Supreme Court over­turned the death sen­tence of Donte Johnson, an inmate who was sen­tenced by a three-judge pan­el after jurors were unable to reach a unan­i­mous deci­sion regard­ing his sen­tence. The Court held that in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona, when a jury is unable to agree on a sen­tence in a cap­i­tal case, the find­ing of aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances and the impo­si­tion of the death penal­ty by a three judge pan­el vio­lates a defen­dan­t’s right to a jury tri­al. The Court ordered a new sen­tenc­ing hear­ing for Johnson. The Court also decid­ed the case of Lawrence Colwell, and held that the Ring deci­sion did not apply to his case because Colwell waived his right to a jury tri­al when he plead­ed guilty. (Law Vegas Review-Journal, December 19, 2002).

New Jersey

New Jersey abol­ished the death penal­ty in 2007.

Prosecutors Drop Death Penalty as Victims’ Mother Seeks Closure Prosecutors from Middlesex County, New Jersey, have decid­ed to adhere to the wish­es of the vic­tim’s fam­i­ly and will not seek the death penal­ty against Dwayne Carreker of New Brunswick at his retri­al. They will instead seek a sen­tence of life in prison. ​“The vic­tim’s moth­er has said she is more inter­est­ed in jus­tice and clo­sure than she is with the death penal­ty,” said First Assistant Prosecutor William Lamb. Lamb not­ed that his office con­sid­ered the vic­tim’s fam­i­ly’s wish­es and the result of the first tri­al against Carreker when decid­ing whether to pro­ceed with a cap­i­tal tri­al. Carreker’s first tri­al end­ed in a mis­tri­al when the jury could not reach a unan­i­mous deci­sion. The state was forced to recon­sid­er its ini­tial deci­sion to seek the death penal­ty when the New Jersey Supreme Court recent­ly ruled that such a deci­sion must be reviewed by a grand jury. (Courier News, February 6, 2004) See Victims and the Death Penalty. The U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring led to the NJ deci­sion requir­ing grand jury review.

State Supreme Court Rules for Grand Jury Rule Changes The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that pros­e­cu­tors who plan to seek the death penal­ty must sub­mit that request to a grand jury for approval. Prior to the 4 – 2 rul­ing by the Court, pros­e­cu­tors could decide to seek the death penal­ty as late as the mid­dle of the tri­al. The Court’s deci­sion was made in the case of Scott Fortin, and will prob­a­bly affect oth­er cas­es cur­rent­ly being pros­e­cut­ed. The remain­ing 13 inmates on death row may not be affect­ed unless the rul­ing is held to be retroac­tive. The Court’s deci­sion brought the state’s pro­ce­dures in line with the United States Supreme Court rul­ing in Ring v Arizona, mak­ing ​“aggra­vat­ing fac­tors” a func­tion­al ele­ment of the crime. Previously, such fac­tors were not con­sid­ered part of the crime, and there­fore were not sub­ject to review by the grand jury. (New York Times, February 4, 2004)

Attorney General, Lawyers Seek Freeze of Capital Cases New Jersey defense attor­neys, with the sup­port of the state’s attor­ney gen­er­al and pros­e­cu­tors, are seek­ing a statewide freeze of cap­i­tal cas­es until the New Jersey Supreme Court can assess the state’s death penal­ty laws as they relate to the U.S. Supreme Court’s rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona. In a let­ter sent to the New Jersey Supreme Court, Assistant Attorney General Peter Harvey stat­ed that the Supreme Court’s rul­ing in Ring is of ​“such tremen­dous statewide import” that all cap­i­tal tri­als should be stayed until the mat­ter is addressed. In Ring, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a death sen­tence vio­lates a defen­dan­t’s con­sti­tu­tion­al right to a tri­al by jury when the nec­es­sary aggra­vat­ing fac­tors must be deter­mined by a judge rather than a jury. Defense attor­neys have also argued that Ring applies to grand jury indict­ments in juris­dic­tions that require them, such as New Jersey. (New Jersey Law Journal, September 16, 2002) Read the arti­cle. Note: On Sept. 17, the N.J. Supreme Court lift­ed a stay in the case of Thomas Koskovich, there­by allow­ing his cap­i­tal tri­al to continue.

New Mexico

New Mexico abol­ished the death penal­ty in 2009.

Application to Mental Retardation A New Mexico tri­al judge recent­ly ruled that part of the state’s death penal­ty law is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. In decid­ing Ruben Flores’s case, Judge Don Maddox ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona gives juries, not judges, the author­i­ty to deter­mine whether a defen­dant is men­tal­ly retard­ed. Currently, judges deter­mine whether a defen­dant is men­tal­ly retard­ed after con­vic­tion, but before his sen­tence is deter­mined. (Albuquerque Journal, September 28, 2002)

New Mexico abol­ished the death penal­ty in 2009 for future crimes. For crimes com­mit­ted pri­or to the effec­tive date of the law, the defense may choose a 2‑jury sys­tem: first jury deter­mines guilt or inno­cence and is then dis­missed; sec­ond jury is death qual­i­fied and deter­mines sen­tence. (NM Supreme Court order).

North Carolina

North Carolina Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Death Penalty Practice In a rul­ing that could affect near­ly every death row inmate in the state, the North Carolina Supreme Court has upheld the prac­tice of using indict­ments with­out aggra­vat­ing fac­tors in mur­der cas­es. The rul­ing came in the case of death row inmate Henry Lee Hunt. Hunt’s attor­neys had argued that, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona, fail­ure to include aggra­vat­ing fac­tors in first-degree mur­der indict­ments is a vio­la­tion of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Grand juries issue indict­ments to inform defen­dants of spe­cif­ic charges, allow­ing for the prepa­ra­tion of a defense and pre­vent­ing the state from con­vict­ing the defen­dant of some­thing else. All of the pris­on­ers on the state’s death row were con­vict­ed in cas­es using a short-form indict­ment. (Herald Sun, July 16, 2003). Executions in the state were stayed as the North Carolina Supreme Court con­sid­ered this case. See Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Stays Execution in Light of Ring The North Carolina Supreme Court stayed the exe­cu­tion of Henry Lee Hunt, decid­ing to hear argu­ments in April, 2003, about whether the indict­ment form used in his mur­der tri­al was con­sti­tu­tion­al in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona. Hunt was sched­uled for exe­cu­tion on January 24, but the court halt­ed the exe­cu­tion to con­sid­er ​“whether the fail­ure to include aggra­vat­ing cir­cum­stances in the indict­ment” that sup­ports the death penal­ty is incon­sis­tent with Ring. (Associated Press, January 22, 2003) 

Federal

Federal Appeals Court Overturns District Court Ruling A fed­er­al appeals court over­turned the rul­ing of U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions III, who had ruled in a Vermont case that the fed­er­al death penal­ty law’s relaxed stan­dards for pre­sent­ing evi­dence at sen­tenc­ing was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. The appeals court rul­ing said judges are ​“evi­den­tiary gate­keep­ers” and thus may decide what is rel­e­vant for the sen­tenc­ing phase of death penal­ty tri­als. (Associated Press, March 2, 2004)

Judge Rules Federal Death Penalty Unconstitutional On September 24, 2002, a fed­er­al judge in Vermont declared the fed­er­al death penal­ty uncon­sti­tu­tion­al in the sec­ond such rul­ing in less than three months. U.S. District Judge William Sessions said the law does not ade­quate­ly pro­tect defen­dants’ rights. The rul­ing, in the case of U.S. v. Donald Fell, No. 2:01-CR-12 – 01 (District Court of Vermont), is based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s deci­sion in Ring v. Arizona hold­ing that cer­tain ele­ments of the death penal­ty sen­tenc­ing process are equiv­a­lent to a find­ing of guilt. Judge Sessions there­fore con­clud­ed that the same rules of evi­dence should apply to deter­min­ing death eli­gi­bil­i­ty as are applied to the guilt-inno­cence phase of the tri­al. Judge Sessions wrote:

If the death penal­ty is to be part of our sys­tem of jus­tice, due process of law and the fair tri­al guar­an­tees of the Sixth Amendment require that stan­dards and safe­guards gov­ern­ing the kinds of evi­dence juries may con­sid­er must be rig­or­ous, and con­sti­tu­tion­al rights and lib­er­ties scrupulously protected.

Federal Judge’s Ruling Could Have Greater Impact: The basis for the recent rul­ing by U.S. District Court Judge William Sessions that the fed­er­al death penal­ty is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al (see above) is that Congress allowed relaxed stan­dards for admit­ting evi­dence at the sen­tenc­ing phase of a death penal­ty tri­al. Given what is at stake, life or death, the high­est stan­dards used to deter­mine guilt should also be used in deter­min­ing eli­gi­bil­i­ty for a death sen­tence, the opin­ion said. Some states also use a relaxed stan­dard at sen­tenc­ing (see, e.g., Fla. Stat. sec. 921.141 (2002)), and if the deci­sion in U.S. v. Fell is upheld or adopt­ed by state courts, it could affect state, as well as fed­er­al, sen­tences. Judge Sessions wrote: ​“using a relaxed evi­den­tiary stan­dard for the deter­mi­na­tion of death-eli­gi­bil­i­ty fac­tors will not sat­is­fy the demands of due process and the Sixth Amendment rights of con­fronta­tion and cross-exam­i­na­tion.” Fell, at 30. He fur­ther chal­lenged the gov­ern­men­t’s con­tention that death sen­tenc­ing per­mit­ted weak­er rules of evi­dence: ​“In effect, the gov­ern­ment would approve death eli­gi­bil­i­ty as the fed­er­al crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem’s sole excep­tion to the prac­tice of requir­ing that offense ele­ments be proven by admis­si­ble evi­dence com­port­ing with due process and fair tri­al guar­an­tees. This makes no sense.” Fell, at 37.

Supreme Court Vacates Federal Death Sentence The Supreme Court vacat­ed the death sen­tence of fed­er­al death row inmate Billie J. Allen and remand­ed the case back to the Eighth Circuit for recon­sid­er­a­tion in light of the Court’s recent rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona. Allen was sen­tenced under fed­er­al law, which pro­vides that the jury deter­mine whether cer­tain aggra­vat­ing fac­tors exist. However, the spe­cif­ic fac­tors that the gov­ern­ment intends to prove have not been part of the indict­ment, which appears to be required by Ring. (New York Times, June 29, 2002). UPDATE : Allen’s sen­tence was reduced by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to life in prison when it ruled that the aggra­vat­ing fac­tors nec­es­sary to sup­port his exe­cu­tion were not includ­ed in the orig­i­nal Federal indict­ment. (February 5, 2004, St Louis Post Dispatch).