HURST V FLORIDA

CASE

• For Hurst v. Florida the question for the Supreme Court involves the death penalty. The question before the court asks who can decide whether the defendant’s mental state and capacity is eligible for the death penalty, and whether or not that violates the Eighth Amendment.

CONVICTION

• The defendant Timothy Lee Hurst was convicted of killing his co-worker Cynthia Harrison at the Popeye’s restaurant where they worked during a robbery. He was originally found guilty by the first jury and eligible for the death penalty. In the course of the appeal Hurst’s lawyers argued that his mental state is unstable having allegedly suffered from fetal alcohol syndrome.

REFERENCE

• In a case form 2002 known as Ring v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that the jury does have the right to decide over the judge, whether or not the defendant meets the requirements of a death penalty punishment regarding whether or not the crime was capital. Hurst’s case is very similar, the difference being whether or not a jury can determine whether a defendant is mentally insane.

STATISTICS

• The second jury disagreed with Hurst’s attorney finding that Hurst was eligible for the death penalty in a narrower 7-5 margin. Given the event in this area of the law another ruling in favor of the power of the jury is likely. The court ruled 7-2 in their decision which favored jury power over the judge’s power. Hurst wasn't sentenced to death.

DISAGREE

• I disagree with the decision because the man was fully aware of his actions and then when all else failed and they knew he was caught they brought out the mentally insane card. The man is clearly stable enough to be aware of his actions and isn't on any type of behavioral medications.

JUDGES WORD

• “The right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment would be senselessly diminished if it encompassed the factfinding necessary to increase a defendant’s sentence by two years, but not the factfinding necessary to put him to death,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg decided.
• I believe it's judicial activism because it's mainly about who thinks what should happen to the man.