US Federal Appeals Court quashes death sentences

[reprise]

Court tosses about 100 death sentences (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=716&e=5&u=/ap/20030903/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty)

A federal appeals court threw out more than 100 death sentences in Arizona, Montana and Idaho on Tuesday because the inmates were sent to death row by judges instead of juries.

Given that SCOTUS has already ruled against judges awarding the death penalty, do the states involved have any basis on which to appeal?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by reprise
Given that SCOTUS has already ruled against judges awarding the death penalty, do the states involved have any basis on which to appeal?

But the Supreme Court left unclear whether the new rules should apply retroactively to inmates awaiting execution.

They're going to argue that the new rule should not apply retroactively.

MattJ

[reprise]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
They're going to argue that the new rule should not apply retroactively.

MattJ

I haven't read the judgement handed down by SCOTUS, but doesn't their ruling imply that it was unconstitutional for judges to award death sentences at the time those sentences were awarded - effectively meaning that those sentences had no legal validity in the first place? Or am I overlooking some finer point of US law.

[SRW]

Originally posted by reprise


I haven't read the judgment handed down by SCOTUS, but doesn't their ruling imply that it was unconstitutional for judges to award death sentences at the time those sentences were awarded - effectively meaning that those sentences had no legal validity in the first place? Or am I overlooking some finer point of US law.


It appears that the ruling is not clear, the Florida appeals court
did not overturn death penalty convictions based on the same decision. Although it does not make much since as the original case was from 1982, so you would think anything after that would not be retroactive.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by reprise


I haven't read the judgement handed down by SCOTUS, but doesn't their ruling imply that it was unconstitutional for judges to award death sentences at the time those sentences were awarded - effectively meaning that those sentences had no legal validity in the first place? Or am I overlooking some finer point of US law.

The Ninth Circuit apparently thinks that the ruling implies what you say. Two other Federal Appeals courts have apparently (http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/70992.html) ruled in the opposite direction.

I believe the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned Circuit Court in the past decade or so, which is not to say that it is wrong in this case, but does make me think that it tends to overreach.

MattJ

[reprise]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


The Ninth Circuit apparently thinks that the ruling implies what you say. Two other Federal Appeals courts have apparently (http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/70992.html) have apparently ruled in the opposite direction.

I believe the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned Circuit Court in the past decade or so, which is not to say that it is wrong in this case, but does make me think that it tends to overreach.

MattJ

So basically SCOTUS needs to make another - more explicit - ruling to resolve the issue?