Florida's Argumentative Essay

Because the jury issues but a mere advisory opinion and not binding upon the court, Florida’s sentencing scheme must be unconstitutional. Florida’s statute requires that a court imposing the death sentence must make a written, detailed finding. This detailed account—not the jury’s verdict—that furnishes the basis for the Supreme Court of Florida’s review. Respondent’s rely on Hildwin (1989 case that permits the judge to find aggravating circumstances that authorize the death sentence) because it has not been expressly overruled. The ideas and principles in Hildwin were thrown out with Walton, clarified in Ring, and expressly overrule today. Ring held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find all facts necessary to impose the death sentence,
Arizona 536 U.S. 584 (quoting Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 155-56 (1968)). Hurst interestingly points out that the three other states that joined Florida as “hybrid” systems—at the time Ring was decided—have since modified their capital sentencing scheme. The other states now ensure that the jury is making the findings necessary for application of a death sentence. A judge should not be the one solely responsible for sending a defendant to his death. Florida’s capital sentencing scheme is an outlier and must be struck down as it violates the Sixth Amendment. Florida argues that there was no Ring violation because there was a recommendation for a death sentence by a jury. This argument fails because the jury made no explicit findings of fact necessary to allow the death sentence. Ring requires that “[c]apital defendant’s, no less than noncapital defendants…are entitled to a jury determination of any fact on which the legislature conditions an increase in their maximum punishment.” Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584,