Relist Watch
on Apr 10, 2015 at 9:55 am
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases.
Since this is the week of the NCAA basketball championships and baseball’s opening day, you probably expect us to fill this edition of the Watch with sports metaphors. But like the Court, we specialize in curveballs, so there will be no sports talk today. Just pretend we’re boycotting the NCAA, standing up for the little guy, or protesting whatever it is the Cubs are doing these days.
The Court is taking it easy these days — on relists, at least — so there’s not much to report. Indeed, if you’re a civil practitioner, you can quit reading now, because the Court’s relists this week are one hundred percent criminal.
When you’re coming off a week with just one relist, the “old business” section is pretty svelte. Our lone returning relist is back and desperate for company. Larkin v. Florida, 14-7884, picked up its second relist this week. Larkin’s petition asks whether the Florida Supreme Court violated clearly established law by allowing a trial court that had expressly found reasonable doubt regarding the defendant’s competency to then allow the defendant to represent himself at his own competency hearing.
Larkin was joined this week by a pair of capital cases from the Yellowhammer State. Christie Scott was convicted of murdering her six-year-old son for life insurance money by setting her house on fire. During the penalty phase of the trial, Scott’s family testified in favor of a sentence of life imprisonment without-parole. The jury obliged by voting seven to five for a life sentence, but the judge overruled the jury and sentenced Scott to death. The judge noted, among other things, that every witness from the victim’s family was also related to the defendant and thus that the jury did not get the usual type of testimony provided by a victim’s family. In the second case, Courtney Lockhart, an Iraq war veteran, was convicted of murdering a college student during a robbery. During the penalty phase, Lockhart argued that he was struggling with trauma from his service in Iraq. The jury found the aggravating circumstance that the murder occurred during a kidnapping but unanimously recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Lockhart’s judge also overruled the jury and handed down a death sentence, noting that it was the sentence the victim’s family had requested. Scott v. Alabama, 14-8189, and Lockhart v. Alabama, 14-8194, both ask (1) whether a judge’s override of a jury’s decision to recommend a sentence of life imprisonment without parole violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on arbitrary and capricious sentences, (2) whether the judge’s override violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, and (3) whether the judge’s override violates the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to a trial by jury in criminal cases. When the Court took no action in either case on Monday, we assumed both were being held for the recently granted Hurst v. Florida, 14-7505, which presents the question (as reformulated by the Court) “[w]hether Florida’s death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment in light of this Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona.” A focus of Hurst is the fact that Florida’s capital sentencing scheme allows a trial court to overrule the jurors’ sentencing recommendation, so we first thought these cases were being held. Happily, the Court updated the dockets before we could spread even more misinformation than usual.
We have a rare treat on the reschedule list this week. Most petitioners only get one bite at the Supreme Court apple as the Court tends to make short shrift of petitions for rehearing. However, Wilcox v. Florida, 14-7293, another capital case, was rescheduled for the April 17 Conference. Darious Wilcox was convicted of first-degree murder. A jury recommended death by a seven-to-five vote, and the judge agreed. Wilcox’s cert. petition asked whether the Jury, Due Process, and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clauses forbid a death sentence when the jury finds the sufficient aggravating circumstances by a bare majority. The Court denied Wilcox’s petition on February 23. But on March 9, the Court granted review in Hurst v. Florida, 14-7505, which for people with truly short memories, involves the constitutionality of Florida’s capital sentencing scheme. Tune in next time and we’ll see whether Wilcox is the case that ends the relentlessly discouraging track record of rescheduled cases so far.
And that’s all we have, short and sweet. There is no Conference this week as the Court needs extra time to contemplate this huge pile of relists. The next orders are scheduled for April 20, assuming the Court isn’t otherwise occupied that day.
Thanks to Stephen Gilstrap and Dmitry Slavin for compiling and drafting this update.
_________________________
[page]14-7884[/page]
(relisted after the March 27 and April 3 Conferences)
[page]14-8189[/page]
(relisted after the April 3 Conference)
[page]14-8194[/page]
(relisted after the April 3 Conference)
