Court rules against indigent inmates in fee dispute
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court says indigent prison inmates can't get a break on paying for the costs of filing lawsuits that some consider frivolous.
The justices ruled unanimously Tuesday that inmates bringing multiple civil suits must use their prison income to make partial monthly payments on filing fees for every case.
At issue is a federal law requiring prisoners to make monthly payments of "20 percent of the preceding month's income" until court fees are paid off. The law was meant to discourage inmates from bringing too many cases.
Lower courts were split over whether that applies to each case, or is capped at 20 percent per prisoner, regardless of how many lawsuits are filed.
The court said it applied to each case, even if a prisoner's bank account is depleted.
Florida death penalty system is unconstitutional
By Sam Hananel
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Florida's unique system for sentencing people to death is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to judges - and not enough to juries - to decide capital sentences, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
The 8-1 ruling said that the state's sentencing procedure is flawed because juries play only an advisory role in recommending death while the judge can reach a different decision.
The decision could trigger new sentencing appeals from some of the 390 inmates on the Florida's death row, a number second only to California. But legal experts said it may apply only to those whose initial appeals are not yet exhausted.
The court sided with Timothy Lee Hurst, who was convicted of the 1998 murder of his manager at a Popeye's restaurant in Pensacola. A jury divided 7-5 in favor of death, but a judge imposed the sentence.
Florida's solicitor general argued that the system was acceptable because a jury first decides if the defendant is eligible for the death penalty.
Writing for the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said a jury's "mere recommendation is not enough." She said the court was overruling previous decisions upholding the state's sentencing process.
"The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death," Sotomayor said.
The justices sent the case back to the Florida Supreme Court to determine whether the error in sentencing Hurst was harmless, or whether he should get a new sentencing hearing.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, saying that the trial judge in Florida simply performs a reviewing function that duplicates what the jury has done.
Under Florida law, the state requires juries in capital sentencing hearings to weigh factors for and against imposing a death sentence. But the judge is not bound by those findings and can reach a different conclusion. The judge can also weigh other factors independently. So a jury could base its decision on one particular aggravating factor, but a judge could then rely on a different factor the jury never considered.
In Hurst's case, prosecutors asked the jury to consider two aggravating factors: the murder was committed during a robbery and it was "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel." But Florida law did not require the jury to say how it voted on each factor. Hurst's attorney argued that it was possible only four jurors agreed with one, while three agreed with the other.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that a defendant has the right to have a jury decide whether the circumstances of a crime warrant a sentence of death.
Florida's American Civil Liberties Union is calling on state officials to re-examine the sentences of all death row inmates.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said in an email statement Tuesday evening that the state will need to make changes to its death-sentencing statutes.
--------
Associated Press writers Curt Anderson in Miami, Gary Fineout in Tallahassee, Florida, and Tamara Lush in St. Petersburg, Florida, contributed to this report.
Published: Thu, Jan 14, 2016
