ShareThis Page
Florida Supreme Court hears death penalty-prosecutor dispute |

Florida Supreme Court hears death penalty-prosecutor dispute

The Associated Press
| Wednesday, June 28, 2017 5:24 p.m
In this March 16, 2017, file photo, Florida State Attorney Aramis Ayala, during a news conference on the steps of the Orange County Courthouse, announces that her office will no longer pursue the death penalty as a sentence in any case brought before the 9th Judicial Circuit of Florida. The Florida Supreme Court on Wednesday, June 28, 2017, is hearing oral arguments in the legal battle between Gov. Rick Scott and Ayala.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Florida Supreme Court scrutinized a prosecutor over her refusal to seek the death penalty in two dozen murder cases, and a justice suggested during arguments Wednesday that Gov. Rick Scott had the power to suspend the state attorney.

The case involves whether the Republican governor violated the state constitution by taking 24 murder cases out of the hands of Orlando-area State Attorney Aramis Ayala, who has said capital punishment is costly and drags on for years.

Attorney Roy Austin said Ayala, a Democrat, is an independently elected official who has the discretion to seek the death penalty or not. He said nothing in Florida law forces her to do so.

“All State Attorney Ayala asks of this court is that this court return those 24 cases to her and treat her the same and with the same respect that is given to every other state attorney in Florida,” Austin said.

It’s a case seemingly without precedent that began in March when Ayala said she wouldn’t seek the death penalty against Markeith Loyd in the fatal shooting of an Orlando police lieutenant and Loyd’s pregnant ex-girlfriend. That outraged those who felt that death is an appropriate punishment for Loyd, while death penalty opponents praised Ayala for saying she wouldn’t seek the punishment in any murder case because it’s inefficient and ineffective.

Austin said he knows of no other case where a governor has stripped a state attorney of a case without their consent. Florida Solicitor General Amit Angarwal said there has never been a state attorney who had set such a blanket policy.

Angarwal said state law allows the governor to make sure laws are enforced. In Ayala’s case, he said, “It can’t be enforced. It’s like that law has been nullified.”

While the court is split between three liberal justices, three conservatives and a moderate, even the liberal justices questioned Ayala’s position because she refused to consider the death penalty on a case-by-case basis.

“That’s my concern, is that we are really taking the death penalty off the table,” Justice Barbara Pariente said. “She didn’t run on that platform, and yet she’s made this announcement after. Isn’t there something that allows the governor in that situation to say, “You know, ‘I have good and sufficient reason to remove you from those death penalty cases.’”

Justice Fred Lewis noted that under the state constitution, Scott could have sought Ayala’s suspension.

“This is not, to me, a conflict of interest kind of issue, this is ‘I’m not going to follow the law as written on the books of the state of Florida,” Lewis said before asking the governor’s attorney why Scott didn’t suspend Ayala.

Scott’s attorney said “the state constitution does give the governor kind of a sledgehammer to deal with some very big problems” but he is instead choosing to use a scalpel here.

Ayala’s attorney said she’s made it clear that she will prosecute homicide cases and seek a harsh penalty. In Florida, the only two sentencing options in first-degree murder cases are life without parole and death.

“We have to separate sentencing from whether or not we’re charging,” Austin said. “Sentencing, I would note, is a quasi-judicial function which the governor cannot intervene on.”

After the arguments, Ayala told reporters, “There are no Florida statutes that required (me) to seek the death penalty. There was no blueprint for me to follow. I did what I believed was proper under Florida law and no laws have been violated.”

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.