But the Ring case left open a thorny question. If Mr. Ring's
death sentence was meted out in violation of constitutional
principles, what about scores of other inmates sentenced to die
under similar circumstances? Should their sentences be reversed
too?
Monday, the justices take up a second Arizona case to decide
whether the court's 2002 decision in the Ring case should be applied
retroactively. If a majority of justices answer yes, their ruling
could invalidate every death sentence in the US handed down by a
judge rather than a jury.
The case has potential implications for 86 death-row inmates in
Arizona, 14 in Idaho, 12 in Nevada, five in Nebraska, and four in
Montana. If the high court issues a particularly broad ruling
mandating mass resentencings, the case could also affect death-row
inmates in Florida, Alabama, Delaware, and Indiana. Some analysts
warn that any ruling supporting retroactive application of Ring
would trigger constitutional challenges to a wide range of
noncapital sentences determined by judges rather than juries,
including federal sentencing guidelines.
The case, Schriro v. Summerlin, is not about whether convicted
murderers should be set free. Rather, the issue is whether they must
be afforded a new sentencing hearing to allow a jury rather than a
judge to decide whether they should be put to death or locked away
in prison.
"What it comes down to is fairness," says Dale Baich of the
Federal Public Defender's Office in Phoenix, which is representing
Arizona death-row inmate Warren Wesley Summerlin. "Do you allow some
individuals on death row to get the benefit of the Ring decision,
and not allow others to get that benefit?"
Results could be the same
Arizona prosecutors have a different view. "Is it fair for the
state and society to go through another sentencing when they relied
on existing law and did it correctly [the first time]?" says John
Pressley Todd, Arizona assistant attorney general. Mr. Todd says
that even if Mr. Summerlin is afforded a new sentencing hearing, it
is unlikely that any jury would reach a result different from the
death sentence issued by the judge.
Summerlin was convicted of raping and bludgeoning to death a bill
collector, Brenna Bailey, who came to his home in April 1981. Her
body was discovered a day later wrapped in a bedsheet in the trunk
of her car. Summerlin's wife identified the bedsheet as having come
from the Summerlin home.
In accord with Arizona law, following the jury's guilty verdict
the trial judge was required to weigh any aggravating or mitigating
circumstances to determine whether a death sentence was appropriate.
The judge found no mitigating circumstances and two aggravating
circumstances. He ruled that death was an appropriate punishment
because the crimes had been committed under especially cruel or
heinous circumstances. (Ms. Bailey's skull was crushed.) The judge
also found that Summerlin had a prior felony conviction.
"There is no question about his guilt here," says Todd. He says
the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Ring should be applied
retroactively only if it would result in a different outcome.
Otherwise, he says, "No one benefits - not the defendant, not the
justice system, not society as a whole."
In his brief to the court Todd writes: "The Ring rule does not
qualify for retroactive application ... because it does not
implicate the accuracy or fairness of capital sentencing
proceedings."
He adds, "Ring did not change what is to be decided, but
only who decides - a fair and impartial judge, or a fair and
impartial jury."
Summerlin's lawyers disagree. Rather than a procedural rule, the
Supreme Court opinion created a substantive change in the law that
mandates retroactive application, they say. All death sentences
issued by judges rather than juries are unconstitutional,
Summerlin's lawyers say.
Involvement of a jury at sentencing injects additional safeguards
into the capital punishment system, they say, and the Constitution
demands no less.
"Even if each of these defendants were ultimately sentenced to
death [by juries], at least their sentence would be constitutional,"
says Michael Burke, an Arizona federal public defender and member of
the Summerlin defense team.
"The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees a right to a
jury trial, and these individuals were denied that fundamental
right," adds Mr. Baich.
Lower courts' opinions
Five federal circuit courts of appeals (the Fifth, Seventh,
Eighth, 10th, and 11th) and five state supreme courts (Arizona,
Nebraska, Alabama, Georgia, and Nevada) say the Ring decision is not
to be retroactively applied. Some said if the US Supreme Court
intended to apply its opinion retroactively, it would have said
so.
But other judges have ruled differently. The Missouri Supreme
Court, a federal judge in Nebraska, and the Ninth US Circuit Court
of Appeals in San Francisco have ruled that the Ring decision should
be applied retroactively. It is the Ninth Circuit's ruling that is
before the high court.
