|
|
 |
|
February 9, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| October 29, 2009 |
By: Jordana Mishory |
|
he Florida Supreme Court adopted new jury instructions Thursday to reduce confusion when jurors are asked to recommend a sentence of either life or death.
In a unanimous, unsigned opinion, the high court reworded instructions to emphasize the jury’s function and added instructions on weighing evidence, witness credibility and guidance for deliberations.
Jurors in death penalty cases now will be told they are “neither compelled nor required to recommend death.” Mitigating factors are defined as “anything in the life of a defendant which might indicate the death penalty is not appropriate” including character and background.
The justices hope the new instructions will address the findings in a 2006 American Bar Association report that found that large numbers of Florida jurors in capital cases “do not understand their role and responsibilities when deciding whether to impose a death sentence.”
The ABA found more than 25 percent of interviewed jurors believed they should recommend a death sentence if the defendant is a future danger to society, a third of jurors voted for the death penalty if they found the conduct to be “heinous, vile or depraved,” and almost 50 percent wrongly concluded mitigating factors had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Those standards are more stringent than state law allows.
“The court’s primary goal is to promote the use of accurate and complete instructions to guide the jury in its penalty phase deliberations and to minimize the likelihood of confusion concerning the jury’s critical role in Florida’s capital sentencing scheme,” the high court wrote in the opinion.
The Supreme Court did not act on two ABA recommendations: jurors should report if racial discrimination crops up during deliberations and defining the terms mental disorder and disability. The court said it hesitated to create instructions without proposals in hand.
On a 4-3 split, the court also rejected mandating a special verdict form in first-degree murder cases, fearing it could result in added confusion.
In a special concurring opinion, Justice Barbara Pariente, joined by Jorge Labarga and James E.C. Perry, wrote the court should adopt special verdict forms in both the guilt and penalty phases.
Forms on guilt or innocence would indicate whether a defendant committed premeditated murder or murder in the course of another felony. Penalty phase forms would spell out the weight given to aggravating and mitigating factors.
Pariente contended the forms would help both the trial courts when imposing sentences and the Florida Supreme Court when reviewing sentences.
“This court has missed an opportunity to further enhance the process of imposition of the death penalty by requiring the use of special verdict forms,” she wrote. “I urge, as did (former) Justice (Raoul) Cantero before me, that there be changes to the death penalty statute to allow for the use of special verdict forms.”
The court asked a pair of committees to evaluate penalty phase instructions in 2004, noting the previous review was in 1997.
Diane Cuddihy, executive chief assistant in the Broward public defender’s office, said the changes do not meet the level of overhaul advocated by public defenders. For instance, defense attorneys wanted jurors to be told explicitly a jury is “never required to impose the death penalty.”
“The changes were not as significant as we believe they should be considering the significant confusion found in capital jurors after they sat in death penalty cases as to what their role is and what the law is,” she said.
Jordana Mishory can be reached at (954) 468-2616.
Barbara Pariente photo by Tom Ervin |
Search the archive for more stories.
|
|
|
 |
|
lawjobs Featured Ad
Foreclosure Litigation Attorney Boca Raton office of expanding firm seeks an Experienced Litigator w/ min. 3 yrs. exp. Excellent salary and benefits package.
E-mail scleary@
logs.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
