The U.S. Supreme Court has vacat­ed a deci­sion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals uphold­ing a death sen­tence imposed on Alabama death row pris­on­er Bart Johnson, and has direct­ed the state court to recon­sid­er the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of Alabama’s death-sen­tenc­ing pro­ce­dures. Johnson, rep­re­sent­ed by lawyers from the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), had chal­lenged the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of his death sen­tence, which was imposed by a tri­al judge after a nonunan­i­mous jury vote of 10 – 2 rec­om­mend­ing a death sen­tence, as vio­lat­ing the Supreme Court’s deci­sion ear­li­er this year in Hurst v. Florida. According to Johnson’s Supreme Court plead­ings, the tri­al court had instruct­ed the jury that it did not need to unan­i­mous­ly agree to any par­tic­u­lar fact that would have made Johnson eli­gi­ble for the death penal­ty, nor did it have to iden­ti­fy for the court any spe­cif­ic aggra­vat­ing fac­tors that it found to be present in the case. Hurst ruled that Florida’s cap­i­tal sen­tenc­ing pro­ce­dures, which per­mit­ted crit­i­cal fac­tu­al find­ings nec­es­sary to impose a death sen­tence to be made by the tri­al judge, rather than the jury, vio­lat­ed the Sixth Amendment right to a jury tri­al. Johnson’s lawyers argued that Alabama’s sen­tenc­ing scheme suf­fers from the same con­sti­tu­tion­al defect and that, “[i]n Bart Johnson’s case, like in Hurst, the judge imposed the death penal­ty based on find­ing two aggra­vat­ing fac­tors that were not clear­ly found by the jury.” Bryan Stevenson, EJI’s exec­u­tive direc­tor, said that the Court’s rul­ing could have sys­temic impli­ca­tions: This rul­ing impli­cates all [cap­i­tal] cas­es in Alabama. We have argued that Alabama’s statute no longer con­forms to cur­rent con­sti­tu­tion­al require­ments. The Court’s rul­ing today sup­ports that view.” In March, an Alabama Circuit Judge barred the death penal­ty in four cas­es on the grounds that Alabama’s sen­tenc­ing scheme was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al. The Supreme Court’s deci­sion to order recon­sid­er­a­tion of Johnson’s case could also affect a court chal­lenge cur­rent­ly pend­ing in the Delaware Supreme Court over the con­sti­tu­tion­al­i­ty of its death penal­ty statute, which employs sim­i­lar sen­tenc­ing pro­ce­dures. Likewise, defense lawyers in Nebraska have argued that the death penal­ty statute in that state — which has been repealed by the leg­is­la­ture pend­ing the out­come of a bal­lot ini­tia­tive in November — imper­mis­si­bly vests key fact-find­ing author­i­ty in the tri­al judge, rather than the jury. 

(K. Faulk, U.S. Supreme Court vacates judg­ment in case of man who killed Pelham police offi­cer,” AL​.com, May 2, 2016; C. Geidner, Supreme Court Calls For Alabama Courts To Review State’s Death Sentencing Process,” BuzzFeed, May 2, 2016; Equal Justice Initiative, U.S. Supreme Court Rules Alabama Death Penalty Must Be Re-Examined Based on New Law,” May 2, 2016; P. Hammel and J. Duggan, Supreme Court says Florida’s sys­tem of decid­ing death sen­tences, a process sim­i­lar to Nebraska’s, is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al,” Omaha World-Herald, January 20, 2016.) Read Bart Johnson’s Supreme Court Petition for Rehearing here. See Sentencing and U.S. Supreme Court.

Citation Guide