Supreme Court sides with Arizona death row inmate seeking to challenge sentence in federal court
Source: CNN
Supreme Court sides with Arizona death row inmate seeking to challenge sentence in federal court
By Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole, CNN
Published 10:48 AM EST, Wed February 22, 2023
Washington (CNN) The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of an Arizona death row inmate who argued he should be able to challenge his sentence in federal court but was stopped from doing so by a state procedural rule. ... Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the 5-4 majority decision, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
John Montenegro Cruz was convicted of the murder of a Tucson police officer in 2003 and sentenced to death. At his trial, as the jury was considering whether to impose a sentence of life or the death penalty, Cruzs lawyer repeatedly asked if he could inform the jury that he would not be eligible for parole if he got a life sentence. ... He cited the fact that in 1994, the Supreme Court held in Simmons v. South Carolina that due process entitled a death row inmate to inform the jury of parole ineligibility when future dangerousness is at issue. He lost the bid and received a death sentence. When Cruz appealed, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the lower court, concluding that Simmons did not apply in Arizona.
In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in Lynch v. Arizona that Simmons does apply in Arizona. Cruz appealed anew and was once again denied. ... The state pointed to a procedural rule that says in order to appeal, there has to be a significant change in the law. The Arizona Supreme Court said the Lynch holding was not a significant change.
Although this is a very technical ruling, its basic gist is that state supreme courts cant rely upon novel state procedural rules to prevent state prisoners from bringing federal constitutional claims, said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
{snip}
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/22/politics/arizona-death-row-inmate-john-cruz-supreme-court/index.html
The Supreme Court set aside an Arizona inmates death sentence, finding state courts erred
wsj.com
Supreme Court Reverses Death Sentence for Arizona Defendant
The justices ruled that an inmate was illegally barred from telling jury he was ineligible for parole.
Link to tweet
Supreme Court Reverses Death Sentence for Arizona Defendant
Justices rule inmate was illegally barred from telling jury he was ineligible for parole
https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-reverses-death-sentence-for-arizona-defendant-3febfbbc
Bev54
(10,100 posts)from Georgia, wanting it to be heard in Federal court?
lastlib
(23,397 posts)IANAL, but it sounds like this would only apply if Georgia had some procedural rule that would bar a defendant from appealing a federal constitutional question in federal court. It would be complicated, and I may be looking at it wrong or not seeing something, but I don't see a federal question in a state election-fraud case.
Bev54
(10,100 posts)Trump could file to have his case heard under a Federal court and there is some ambiguity about if it would work or not. What everyone seems to agree on is that it could delay, delay, delay.
lapfog_1
(29,246 posts)and the one thing SCOTUS does not like is when a lower court (federal or state) ignores one of their decisions.
Surprised this was only 5-4
stopdiggin
(11,419 posts)(my opinion anyway) as one court can give to another ...
In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in Lynch v. Arizona that Simmons does apply in Arizona. Cruz appealed anew and was once again denied. ... The state pointed to a procedural rule that says in order to appeal, there has to be a significant change in the law. The Arizona Supreme Court said the Lynch holding was not a significant change.
GB_RN
(2,437 posts)I am not surprised that it was (only) 5-4 in that the SCOTUS smacked down the AZSC for thinking it was trying to wind its way around a SCOTUS decision on a technicality. However, I am surprised that the court ruled for the plaintiff in this case as he was trying to avoid the death penalty: The Reichwing's (in)Justices seem to have a raging hard-on for the death penalty, despite them being Catholic (or at least the majority of them, IIRC).
Polybius
(15,540 posts)A few judges issued rulings as if it were still in place.