Criminal Justice Association of Georgia ‘SUP WITH THE SUPREME COURT A Selective Analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Pending Cases for the October 2015 Term Lucy Ann Hoover, J.D., LL.M. Michael Reese, J.D., LL.M., Ph.D. University of North Georgia

Hurst v. Florida Issue: Whether Florida’s death sentencing scheme violates the 6th Amendment or 8th Amendment in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona. Facts: Timothy Lee Hurst was convicted of First Degree Pre-Meditated Murder/Felony Murder with a Weapon in the death of a co-worker during the course of a robbery. The victim was bound, gagged and stabbed multiple times. The jury recommended the death penalty by a 7-5 vote and the court sentenced Hurst to death.

Hurst v. Florida On appeal, Hurst claimed that the Court’s ruling in Ring v. Arizona should require the jury to determine beyond a reasonable doubt his intellectual disability and whether allowing the Judge to pronounce a death sentence absent the jury’s finding of aggravating circumstances is constitutional. Florida’s Response: The jury’s recommendation of the death penalty allows the inference of a finding of at least one aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. The Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a defendant has no right to a jury determination of intellectual disability.

Montgomery v. Louisiana Issue: Whether there is retroactive application to the Court’s 2012 ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which found that a judge or jury must have the opportunity to consider youth as a mitigating circumstance before sentencing a juvenile murderer to life-without-parole. Facts: In 1963, at the age of 17, Henry Montgomery shot and killed Deputy Charles Hurt. Under Louisiana law, punishment was imprisonment at hard labor for life with no parole eligibility unless the life sentence was commuted to a fixed term of years.

Montgomery v. Louisiana The question of retroactivity was decided in the Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Teague v. Lane, in which it held that new constitutional rules are presumed to apply prospectively only, unless the rule is substantive or it is a watershed rule of criminal procedural. To date, The U.S. Supreme Court has never held any rule to be a watershed rule of criminal procedure. Procedural law provides the process that a case will go through and determines how a proceeding concerning the enforcement of substantive law will occur.

Luis v. United States Issue: Whether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant’s legitimate, untainted assets (those not traceable to a criminal offense) needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Facts: Sila Luis is an indicted defendant in a criminal case charged with health care fraud offenses and wishes to retain private counsel. The U.S. District Court has entered a preliminary injunction preventing her from spending any of her own money, including untainted funds, to secure counsel of her choice.

Luis v. United States Title 18 USC 1345 authorizes the Attorney General to commence a civil action against a person who is “committing or about to commit…alienating or disposing of property obtained as a result of…a Federal health care offense or property which is traceable to such violation” or bar “any person from withdrawing, transferring, removing, dissipating, or disposing of any such property…of equivalent value.” These provisions ensure preservation of assets that a criminal court may later order the defendant to forfeit or to provide victims as restitution.

Luis v. United States Government: The Defendant’s Sixth Amendment interests in hiring counsel of choice do not outweigh the public’s and victim’s interests in preserving forfeitable assets. Luis: 5th Amendment – No person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. 6th Amendment – the accused shall enjoy the right to assistance of counsel. Luis argues that it be must be proven that the frozen assets are tainted; an injunction prior to a conviction is an unconstitutional taking; and displacing counsel of choice undermines the fairness of criminal proceedings.

Foster v. Humphrey Issue: Did the Georgia courts err in failing to recognize race discrimination under Batson in a death penalty case? Facts: In 1987, Timothy Tyrone Foster was convicted on one count each of murder and burglary and sentenced to death. During voir dire, 42 jurors were qualified to serve, 4 of whom were black. Using their peremptory challenges, the prosecution challenged and excused all 4 black jurors. Foster objected and claimed a violation of the Supreme Court’s 1986 ruling in Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibits juror excusal on the basis of race.

Foster v. Humphrey In 2006, Foster gained access to the 1987 prosecution’s jury selection notes and presented them in support of a new Batson challenge. In Batson, the Court held, “[t]he State denies a black defendant equal protection of the laws when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposefully excluded.” The prosecution notes reveal that the names of the 4 black jurors were highlighted, the word BLACK was circled on the juror questionnaire, and the 4 black jurors were ranked “in case it comes down to having to pick one…”