Jury unanimity in recommending a sentence of death is correct | Opinion
Recently, Rep. Berny Jacques and Sen. Blaise Ingoglia filed bills allowing juries in capital cases to recommend a death sentence if only eight of the 12 jurors agreed they could do so. Jacques, referring to the Nikolas Cruz case, said, “It is unconscionable that ‘protest jurors’ can deny justice to the families of victims of heinous crimes in our current system of unanimity.”
In selecting jurors to determine if a person is worthy of death or guilty of stealing a loaf of bread, the crucial inquiry is the same. Can they fairly and impartially consider only the evidence presented at trial in reaching their verdict?
In the Cruz case, finding 12 members of the community who could do so, was extraordinarily difficult. Hundreds of potential jurors said they could not be fair and impartial. Ultimately 12 said they could, and they were sworn to determine Cruz’ fate.
By the time they took that oath, several things had occurred:
Each promised, that even though they knew about the facts of the case, they could set that knowledge aside and consider only the evidence presented at trial.
They also promised that they could fairly and impartially do so.
Most significantly, each juror said that they could recommend death. There were none who were opposed to the death penalty. There were no “protest jurors.” Those had been excused from deciding Cruz’s fate.
The prosecution and defense accepted the jury ultimately selected, agreeing that those 12 ordinary members of the community could be fair and impartial.
Those selected took an oath that they could fairly and impartially determine what sentence to recommend.
Thus, before they had heard any evidence the jury was predisposed to recommend Cruz be put to death. At least one, however, could not, and Cruz was sentenced to life in prison.
Unanimous jury verdicts have been a bedrock, fundamental requirement of America’s and Florida’s system of justice before the United States became a country, and Florida became a state. For hundreds of years, such a demand, even for” heinous crimes,” has given us solid confidence of a person’s guilt, or in the case of Cruz, that a sentence of death was justified.
When the people of Florida, coldly and deliberately end a person’s life, they should have an unwavering confidence that what they have done is justified and correct. Unanimous verdicts do so in a way that non unanimous ones, such as the proposed 8-4 jury vote, do not.
When 12 ordinary members of the community, without exception, conclude that a death sentence is the only punishment the defendant should suffer, such unanimity assures us that such punishment is deserved. Non unanimous recommendations, such as the 8-4, or even a super majority of 10-2 recommendation, proposed do not. Non unanimity leaves a lingering doubt that what we are going to do is correct.
Jury unanimity removes that doubt, and it should be or remain the law in Florida.
David Davis was an Assistant Public Defender for 38 years. He represented more than 90 men sentenced to death before the Florida and United State Supreme Courts. He can be reached at davedavis1@embarqmail.com
Editor's note: The names of Rep. Berny Jacques and Sen. Blaise Ingoglia were spelled incorrectly in an earlier version of this column.
JOIN THE CONVERSATION
Send letters to the editor (up to 200 words) or Your Turn columns (about 500 words) to letters@tallahassee.com. Please include your address for verification purposes only, and if you send a Your Turn, also include a photo and 1-2 line bio of yourself. You can also submit anonymous Zing!s at Tallahassee.com/Zing. Submissions are published on a space-available basis. All submissions may be edited for content, clarity and length, and may also be published by any part of the USA TODAY NETWORK.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Jury unanimity in recommending a sentence of death is correct
