Florida Death Sentencing Scheme Unconstitutional

Florida's "hybrid" jury advisory sentencing scheme, which did not require unanimity, was struck down under the Sixth Amendment.

 

Hurst v. Florida, U.S. No. 14-7505, decided on 1/12/16

    The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Florida capital punishment sentencing scheme that involved juries giving advisory verdicts which did not need to be unanimous, but took into account aggravating factors and punishment. Ultimately, the juries were told, the judges had the final decision for what punishment would be imposed.

    The Court stated that "[t]he Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A jury's recommendation is not enough."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-7505_5ie6.pdf

No Quantity Discount For Indigent Prisoners IFP Filings

Indigent prisoners must pay a percentage of the fee for each individual suit, the cap on filing fees does not combine their suits for payment purposes.

 

Bruce v. Samuels et al, U.S., No. 14-844, decided 1/12/16

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that indigent prisoners filing multiple in forma pauperis actions do not get a quantity discount on filing fees. Under the cap on filing fees extended to indigent prisoners under 28 U.S.C. §1915 they must cover a percentage of the fee for each individual suit they bring. There is still a provision in the law that ensures that the fee requirements do not completely bar a prisoner's access to the courts.

    The court said that "[t]he per case approach more vigorously serves the statutory objective of containing prisoner litigation."

http://src.bna.com/bYX

Excessive Force in Pretrail Detention

KINGSLEY v. HENDRICKSON ET AL.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in order for a claim of excessive force made by a pretrial detainee against a corrections officer to prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it needs to show only that the force used was objectively unreasonable.

The Court rejected the government’s argument that corrections officers could only be held liable if they were subjectively aware that their use of force was unreasonable. The Court ruled that the test is one of objectivity, as an objective test is consistent with precedent and more workable than the subjective test.

The Court stated that an objective test “is consistent with the pattern jury instructions used in several Circuits, and many facilities train officers to interact with detainees as if the officers' conduct is subject to objective reasonableness,” and that “the use of an objective standard adequately protects an officer who acts in good faith, e.g., by acknowledging that judging the reasonableness of the force used from the perspective and with the knowledge of the defendant officer is an appropriate part of the analysis.”

This determination will be made from the perspective of “a reasonable officer on the scene, including what the officer knew at the time.” See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 , 396. The determination must also consider the “legitimate interests [stemming from the government’s] need to manage the facility in which the individual is detained.”

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Kingsley_v_Hendrickson_No_146368_US_June_22_2015_Court_Opinion