Opinion ID: 2557847
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A Fractured Supreme Court In Gardner Overturned A Death Sentence Because The Sentencing Judge Relied On Information Unavailable To Defense Counsel.

Text: A jury found Gardner guilty of first degree murder in Florida on January 10, 1974. [25] Florida, like Delaware, requires a separate penalty hearing in capital cases where a jury must determine whether the State had proven statutory aggravating circumstances, whether mitigating circumstances outweigh aggravating circumstances, and whether the defendant should be sentenced to life imprisonment or death. After the jury retired to deliberate, the sentencing judge announced that he was going to order a presentence investigation of Gardner. [26] After twenty-five minutes of deliberation, the jury expressly found that the mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating circumstances and advised the judge to impose a life sentence. [27] The Florida Parole and Probation Commission completed its presentence investigation of Gardner and issued a presentence report on January 28, 1974. [28] Two days later, the trial judge entered findings of fact and, contrary to the jury recommendation, sentenced Gardner to death. [29] He explicitly based his judgment on the evidence presented at both stages of the bifurcated proceeding, the arguments of counsel, and his review of the factual information contained in said pre-sentence investigation. [30] The presentence investigation report had a confidential portion that the judge never disclosed to defense counsel. [31] Defense counsel and the State each received copies of the non-confidential portions of the report, and defense counsel did not ask to see the full report or to be appraised of the substance of the confidential portion. [32] The Supreme Court, by a fractured majority, vacated Gardner's death sentence and remanded. The plurality written opinion based this judgment on its belief that Gardner was denied due process of law when the death sentence was imposed, at least in part, on the basis of information which he had no opportunity to deny or explain. [33]