Opinion ID: 3162657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Starling’s Direct Appeal

Text: In his direct appeal, Starling raised a number of arguments relating to the jury venire, use of peremptory challenges, and denial of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He also challenged the constitutionality of Delaware’s death-penalty statute under the Sixth Amendment, as well as the Superior Court’s 15 Starling v. State, 882 A.2d 747, 752 (Del. 2005). 16 State v. Starling, Cr. ID No. 0104015882 (Del. Super. June 10, 2004). 9 sentencing decision. Further, Starling argued that the prosecution failed to disclose Miller’s statement to police, “den[ying] that Starling admitted anything to her or that she saw Starling on the night of the shootings.”17 This Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the death sentences because the Superior Court judge “erred as a matter of law by stating that he was ‘directed’ to give the recommendation great weight.” 18 This Court then remanded the case to the Superior Court for resentencing. The Superior Court resentenced Starling to two death sentences on October 2, 2005. We affirmed those sentences on appeal. 19