{"id":51643,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/dead-wrong-or-right-on.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"dead-wrong-or-right-on","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/dead-wrong-or-right-on.html","title":{"rendered":"Dead Wrong or Right On?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n
<\/a><\/td>\n

Dead Wrong or Right On?
Should The Supreme Court Uphold the Ninth Circuit’s Reversal of 122 Death Sentences Imposed by Judges, Not Juries?<\/span><\/h1><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

By ELAINE CASSEL<\/h2><\/a><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n

Thursday, Sep. 11, 2003<\/td>\n\n <\/tr>\n <\/table>\n

On September 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth ruled in Summerlin v. Stewart<\/i><\/a> that past death sentences imposed by judges, rather than juries, must be set aside. The decision could lead to the resentencing of as many as 122 prisoners in six death penalty states within the Circuit where judges impose criminal sentences: Arizona, Colorado Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Idaho.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n \n

The decision was a logical – indeed, an inevitable – outgrowth of two recent Supreme Court decisions. But that hasn’t stopped the Attorney General of Arizona from seeking U.S. Supreme Court review. Other attorneys general from affected states may join him. <\/p>\n \n

If it grants review, the U.S. Supreme Court should affirm the Ninth Circuit’s well-reasoned opinion. Its prior rulings demand it.<\/p>\n \n

The Summerlin<\/i><\/b> Case Itself: An Illustration of the Death Penalty Gone Wrong<\/p>\n \n

Summerlin’s case was “stranger than fiction,” to quote the majority opinion. “It is the raw material from which legal fiction is forged: A vicious murder, an anonymous psychic tip, a romantic encounter that jeopardized a plea agreement, an allegedly incompetent defense, and a death sentence imposed by a purportedly drug-addled judge.”<\/p>\n \n

Summerlin is functionally retarded. He suffers from organic brain dysfunction and poor impulse control. It seems inconceivable that he could have meaningfully assisted in his own defense. In light of his mental state, it is cruel to impose the death penalty upon him – an issue the U.S. Supreme Court has separately addressed in Atkins v. Virginia<\/i><\/a>. <\/p>\n \n

Summerlin’s judge was later disbarred for drug addiction, and may well have been affected by that addiction during the case. <\/p>\n \n

The prosecutor had initially been willing to accept Summerlin’s plea of guilty and to recommend a long prison term. This was during the time frame in which Summerlin’s public defender had sex with the prosecutor, a bizarre fact that remained undisclosed for some time and that ultimately led to her withdrawal from the case late in the proceedings. <\/p>\n \n

In spite of the plea agreement, the judge indicated that he might ignore the sentencing recommendation and impose a higher sentence. Summerlin withdrew his guilty plea. When Summerlin was convicted by a jury, the judge who had sabotaged Summerlin’s plea imposed the death penalty – for Arizona places the penalty phase of a criminal trial in the hands of the judge. It was this procedure that the Supreme Court had rejected in a prior case.<\/p>\n \n

\n