Tre anni fa, con parole molto dure, la Sotomayor ha demolito il sentencing capitale dell’Alabama dimostrandone l’incostituzionalità.
Sweet home Alabama
Un’amica è venuta a trovarmi portando una tazza di brodo caldo e, vedendomi così infervorato attorno all’Alabama, mi ha chiesto quante persone leggeranno quello che troverete più sotto. Le ho risposto che la cosa può interessare quattro o cinque persone al massimo. Non potete immaginare la faccia che ha fatto. Questa è una delle molte ragioni per cui mi sto occupando di portaerei giapponesi.
Sweet home Alabama
Where the skies are so blue
Sweet Home Alabama
Lord, I’m coming home to you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwWUOmk7wO0
Alabama, Florida, Hurst and Sotomayor.
Tre anni fa, con parole molto dure, la Sotomayor ha demolito il sentencing capitale dell’Alabama dimostrandone l’incostituzionalità.
MARIO DION WOODWARD v. ALABAMA
Cert denied November 18, 2013
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-5380_08l1.pdf
“After the jury returns its advisory verdict, the trial judge makes her own determination whether the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances and imposes a sentence accordingly.”
“The trial judge conducted his own sentencing proceeding. At that hearing, the State presented additional evidence concerning the mitigating circumstances presented to the jury. The trial judge, in part on the basis of the new evidence, rejected the jury’s finding. Making his own determination that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances, the judge imposed the death penalty, thereby overriding the jury’s prior advisory verdict of life without parole.”
“The very principles that animated our decisions in Apprendi and Ring call into doubt the validity of Alabama’s capital sentencing scheme. Alabama permits a defendant to present mitigating circumstances that weigh against imposition of the death penalty.”
Due anni dopo, con le stesse parole, la stessa giudice scriveva l’opinione della Corte in Hurst ponendo fine al sentencing della Florida.
HURST v FLORIDA
Decided January 12, 2016
SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-7505_5ie6.pdf
“We hold this sentencing scheme unconstitutional. The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A jury’s mere recommendation is not enough.”
“We now expressly overrule Spaziano and Hildwin in relevant part. Spaziano and Hildwin summarized earlier precedent to conclude that “the Sixth Amendment does not require that the specific findings authorizing the imposition of the sentence of death be made by the jury.” Their conclusion was wrong, and irreconcilable with Apprendi. Indeed, today is not the first time we have recognized as much. In Ring, we held that another pre-Apprendi decision—Walton, — could not “survive the reasoning of Apprendi.”. Walton, for its part, was a mere application of Hildwin’s holding to Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme.”
“The Sixth Amendment protects a defendant’s right to an impartial jury. This right required Florida to base Timothy Hurst’s death sentence on a jury’s verdict, not a judge’s fact finding. Florida’s sentencing scheme, which required the judge alone to find the existence of an aggravating circumstance, is therefore unconstitutional. The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”
Eppure, come se nulla fosse, la Corte Suprema continua a ignorare i casi dell’Alabama che vengono sottoposti alla Sua attenzione.
CHRISTOPHER EUGENE BROOKS v. ALABAMA
Cert denied January 21, 2016, Sotomayor dissenting
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-7786_n7io.pdf
“This Court’s opinion upholding Alabama’s capital sentencing scheme was based on Hildwin v. Florida, (1989) and Spaziano v. Florida, (1984), two decisions we recently overruled in Hurst v. Florida, (2016).”
Bravo chi ci capisce. Io no.
