For the professional edge in your day-to-day practice, rely on the most timely, objective reporting on significant developments, trends, and emerging patterns in criminal law today—Criminal Law...
The death penalty is still alive in America after the U.S. Supreme Court declined March 19 to take up a bold challenge to it.
The high court rejected convicted killer Abel Hidalgo’s petition attacking the punishment nationwide and in Arizona, where he was sentenced to death.
Legal analysts predicted the justices would reject the broader nationwide question—only a minority of the court has publicly questioned the constitutionality of capital punishment.
But some court watchers speculated the justices might want to take on the Arizona-specific issue.
Hidalgo argued the state’s system makes too many killers eligible for death.
That’s significant because the Supreme Court has said that laying out aggravating factors—specific conditions required to return a death sentence—would limit otherwise unconstitutional discretion in capital sentencing schemes. Under such schemes, “in the absence of more convincing evidence,” the death penalty is constitutionally permissible, the court said.
“The evidence is in” that the death penalty is unconstitutional both in Arizona and nationwide, Hidalgo said in his Aug. 14 petition. He was represented by Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal, a former acting U.S. solicitor general.
The court nevertheless rejected Hidalgo’s petition—though not without comment from the court’s Democratic appointees.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, issued a statement respecting the denial. It focused on the state-specific question.
“The Arizona Supreme Court misapplied our precedent,” Breyer wrote.
But he still agreed with the decision to deny review.
Hidalgo referenced evidence “that suggests about 98% of first-degree murder defendants in Arizona were eligible for the death penalty,” Breyer noted.
But even though that evidence poses “a possible constitutional problem,” Hidalgo was unable to make a proper record of that evidence because “the opportunity to develop the record through an evidentiary hearing was denied,” Breyer said.
But a developed record would merit the court’s attention, the statement suggested.
“Capital defendants may have the opportunity to fully develop a record with the kind of empirical evidence that the petitioner points to here,” he wrote.
“And the issue presented in this petition will be better suited for certiorari with such a record.”
In an unrelated petition in another murder case rejected the same day, Sotomayor issued her own statement respecting denial.
Glen Campbell was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to life-without-parole in Ohio.
He challenged the state law that says murder sentences are “not subject to review.”
Like Breyer’s statement respecting the denial in Hidalgo, Sotomayor agreed the denial here was appropriate for procedural reasons, but nonetheless felt the underlying issue warranted scrutiny.
She agreed with the denial “because Campbell failed adequately to present his constitutional arguments to the state courts.”
But she wrote separately—and alone—to highlight her view that “a statute that shields from judicial scrutiny sentences of life without the possibility of parole raises serious constitutional concerns.”
“Life without parole ‘is the second most severe penalty permitted by law,’” Sotomayor observed, quoting a 1991 case.
The cases are Hidalgo v. Arizona , U.S., No. 17-251, review denied 3/19/18 and Campbell v. Ohio, U.S., No. 17–6232, review denied 3/19/18 .
To contact the reporter on this story: Jordan S. Rubin in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: C. Reilly Larson at email@example.com
Copyright © 2018 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)