danielle
04-26-2002, 07:25 AM
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Legal wrangling over the death penalty took center stage at the U.S. Supreme Court Monday, with justices hearing arguments over whether judges or juries should sentence defendants to death and also agreeing to decide whether another death row inmate received an adequate defense.
The court is expected to rule on three major death penalty cases this year, including the case of Timothy Ring, which was argued Monday.
Ring was sentenced to death by a judge in Arizona for his role in an armored truck robbery in which the driver was shot to death. Arizona is one of nine states where a judge, rather than a jury, can impose the death penalty.
At a sentencing hearing after Ring was convicted by a jury, the judge heard additional testimony from an accomplice who said Ring was the ringleader of the robbery plot and the trigger man. The judge, partially citing this evidence, found "aggravating" factors and sentenced Ring to death.
But Ring's attorneys argued that because that evidence was never presented to a jury, the sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and his 14th Amendment right to due process.
"Timothy Ring got a jury trial with respect to some facts, but the important facts -- the facts critical to whether he would live or die -- were tried to a judge without a jury there," said Andrew Hurwitz, a Phoenix lawyer arguing the condemned man's case.
But Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano, who had argued the state's case before the high court, told reporters Arizona's sentencing scheme is constitutional and state lawmakers will not change it unless the Supreme Court forces them to do so.
At issue in the Ring case is the precise meaning of a Supreme Court ruling two years ago in which the court said that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed maximum must be submitted to a jury." This is the third time this year that the court has been asked to elaborate on its ruling in Apprendi vs. New Jersey.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision by end of June. A ruling in favor of Ring could force changes in capital punishment laws in the nine states where judges can impose death sentences.
Meanwhile, the justices announced they will hear a case later this year which could open the door to more appeals of death penalty cases.
A condemned Tennessee murderer, Abu-Ali Abdur-Rahman, claims he has new evidence of improper conduct by state prosecutors in his trial. Lower courts rejected his appeal, but the Supreme Court recently halted his execution and has now agreed to consider whether he can pursue further appeals in federal court.
Abdur-Rahman has complained of inadequate representation by his inexperienced trial lawyers, and questions about conduct of the trial have grown.
In addition to deciding the Ring case, the Supreme Court is also expected to decide two other capital punishment cases this year:
In one case, justices are considering whether states can execute individuals are determined to be marginally mentally retarded. In another case, they are weighing guidelines for determining circumstances under which death row inmates may raise claims of ineffective legal counsel
The court is expected to rule on three major death penalty cases this year, including the case of Timothy Ring, which was argued Monday.
Ring was sentenced to death by a judge in Arizona for his role in an armored truck robbery in which the driver was shot to death. Arizona is one of nine states where a judge, rather than a jury, can impose the death penalty.
At a sentencing hearing after Ring was convicted by a jury, the judge heard additional testimony from an accomplice who said Ring was the ringleader of the robbery plot and the trigger man. The judge, partially citing this evidence, found "aggravating" factors and sentenced Ring to death.
But Ring's attorneys argued that because that evidence was never presented to a jury, the sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and his 14th Amendment right to due process.
"Timothy Ring got a jury trial with respect to some facts, but the important facts -- the facts critical to whether he would live or die -- were tried to a judge without a jury there," said Andrew Hurwitz, a Phoenix lawyer arguing the condemned man's case.
But Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano, who had argued the state's case before the high court, told reporters Arizona's sentencing scheme is constitutional and state lawmakers will not change it unless the Supreme Court forces them to do so.
At issue in the Ring case is the precise meaning of a Supreme Court ruling two years ago in which the court said that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed maximum must be submitted to a jury." This is the third time this year that the court has been asked to elaborate on its ruling in Apprendi vs. New Jersey.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision by end of June. A ruling in favor of Ring could force changes in capital punishment laws in the nine states where judges can impose death sentences.
Meanwhile, the justices announced they will hear a case later this year which could open the door to more appeals of death penalty cases.
A condemned Tennessee murderer, Abu-Ali Abdur-Rahman, claims he has new evidence of improper conduct by state prosecutors in his trial. Lower courts rejected his appeal, but the Supreme Court recently halted his execution and has now agreed to consider whether he can pursue further appeals in federal court.
Abdur-Rahman has complained of inadequate representation by his inexperienced trial lawyers, and questions about conduct of the trial have grown.
In addition to deciding the Ring case, the Supreme Court is also expected to decide two other capital punishment cases this year:
In one case, justices are considering whether states can execute individuals are determined to be marginally mentally retarded. In another case, they are weighing guidelines for determining circumstances under which death row inmates may raise claims of ineffective legal counsel