Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

HURST v. FLORIDA

Docket No.: 14-7505
Certiorari Granted: 03/09/15
Argued: October 13, 2015

Topics:

Eighth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, capital murder, death penalty, harmless error, murder

PartyNames: Timothy Lee Hurst v. Florida
Petitioner: Timothy Lee Hurst
Respondent: Florida

Court Below: Supreme Court of Florida
Citation: 147 So.3d 435
Supreme Court Docket

Timothy Lee Hurst
v.
Florida
Consideration Limited:

WHETHER FLORIDA'S DEATH SENTENCING SCHEME VIOLATES THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OR THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT IN LIGHT OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN RING v. ARIZONA, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)

Question Presented:

WHETHER THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE JURY IN A DEATH PENALTY CASE DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION TO RENDER A VERDICT IN THE PENALTY PHASE OF WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS MENTALLY RETARDED OR NOT WHEN EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO SUPPORT SUCH A CONCLUSION. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA HAS CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN RING v. ARIZONA, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (1) HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO THE FLORIDA DEATH SENTENCING SCHEME GENERALLY, (2)THAT SPECIFICALLY IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE JURY'S RECOMMENDATION OF DEATH BE UNANIMOUS, (3) THAT THE JURY FINDING OF AGGRAVATING FACTORS NEED NOT BE UNANIMOUS, (4) THAT THE JURY HAS NO ROLE IN DETERMINING THE FACTUAL ISSUE OF THE DEFENDANT MENTAL RETARDATION, AND (5) THAT THE LACK OF UNANIMITY DOES NOT OFFEND OUR EVOLVING STANDARDS OF DECENCY AS REQUIRED BY THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT?

HURST v. FLORIDA
ORAL ARGUMENT

October 13, 2015

Listen to Oral Argument in HURST v. FLORIDA
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)