U.S. Supreme Court Weighs Tough Sentencing in Two Cases
EmailWASHINGTON—On Tuesday Amid a nationwide discussion over tough criminal sentences and overcrowded prisons, the Supreme Court heard appeals over harsh punishments that two convicts contend violate the Constitution.
In the first case, a Louisiana inmate convicted of killing a deputy sheriff in 1963, when he was 17 years old, asked the court to make retroactive its 2012 decision that juveniles cannot automatically be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Such a ruling would allow Henry Montgomery, now 68 years old, a chance to seek release—along with about 1,500 other juvenile offenders.
The second case challenged procedures Florida uses for imposing death sentences, where juries deliver “advisory verdicts” by majority vote and judges have the final say. Timothy Lee Hurst, sent to death row for killing a Popeye’s restaurant manager in 1998, contends the system violates a 2002 precedent that defendants are entitled to have a jury, rather than a judge, determine a death sentence.
In the Louisiana case, Mr. Montgomery’s lawyers and the U.S. government, in an usual move where it sided with defendants rather than prosecutors, argued the court’s 2012 opinion, Miller v. Alabama, should be applied to prisoners convicted of juvenile crimes prior to that date, even though its rulings generally don’t apply retroactively.
“The law must change to accommodate the compelling interests in having the characteristics of youth that mitigate culpability considered in the sentencing process,” Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben told the court. The significance of the 2012 ruling, he said, was seen in that only once before, in 1976, had the court “ever invalidated a mandatory sentencing provision.”
He said about 10 states had treated the 2012 ruling as retroactive, with most converting juvenile sentences to a fixed term rather than life with the opportunity for parole.
But the Louisiana Supreme Court, in a 2013 opinion, found that the new bar against mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders didn’t meet conditions for retroactivity because it was neither a substantive change in the law, because judges could still impose it when they believed it warranted, nor affected the fairness of the trial itself.
At Tuesday’s 75-minute argument, the principal question wasn’t whether the Louisiana court got it right, but whether Mr. Montgomery’s case was ripe for high court action at all.
That’s because defendants have two pathways to raise constitutional claims after conviction, first through the state courts and then in the federal judiciary. Mr. Montgomery hasn’t yet raised claims in the federal courts.
All parties before the court—Mr. Montgomery, the Obama administration and the state of Louisiana—agreed that the U.S. Supreme Court had such jurisdiction. But the justices weren’t so sure themselves, so they appointed a volunteer attorney, Richard Bernstein, to argue that they should hold off on the Montgomery case until the prisoner brought it up again through the federal courts.
“The issue is whether to decide the question of Miller’s retroactivity in this case or in a federal habeas case,” Mr. Bernstein said, noting that one such appeal already has been filed with the Supreme Court.
Justice Elena Kagan, author of the 2012 opinion, made clear her view was the court shouldn’t wait to give it retroactive effect.
She said that while her Miller opinion had procedural elements, that fact “does not take away the fact that here is a completely separate, selfsufficient component as to what the range of punishment has to be.”
The lawyer for Louisiana, Kyle Duncan, disagreed. “Miller did not take the punishment of life without parole…off the table,” he said, and therefore the 2012 case should be considered procedural with no retroactive effect.
In the Florida case, a jury, told that the judge would have the final word, voted 7-5 to find aggravating factors, including the heinous nature of the crime and that it was committed during a robbery, necessary for a death sentence.
Florida’s solicitor general, Allen Winsor, argued the state’s system actually favored defendants by giving them a second chance to avoid execution through a “judicial backstop”—the judge’s review of the jury’s recommendation.
The judge can override a death recommendation, but, under Supreme Court precedent, cannot impose death if a majority of jurors doesn’t find aggravating circumstances, he said.
Raising the vote count required to impose the death penalty could have significant implications, according to data the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School published last week.
In addition to Florida, only Alabama and Delaware allow death sentences from divided juries. Had those states required unanimous jury verdicts, they would have imposed 26 death sentences instead of 117, the institute said. The cases will be decided before July 2016.
