Opinion ID: 479192
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of Caldwell to Florida's Sentencing Scheme

Text: 10 The district court's determination that Caldwell was inapplicable to Adams' case was based on an inaccurate assessment of the role of the jury in the Florida system and a misunderstanding of the significance of the jury override. Under Florida's trifurcated procedure in capital felony cases, after a jury determination of guilt, a separate sentencing proceeding is held before the jury, after which the jury renders an advisory sentence based on its weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Fla.Stat.Ann. Sec. 921.141(1)(2) (1985). Although the trial judge must then independently weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and render sentence, the jury's recommendation, which represents the judgment of the community as to whether the death sentence is appropriate in a given case, is entitled to great weight, McCampbell v. State, 421 So.2d 1072, 1075 (Fla.1982) (per curiam), and may be rejected by the trial judge only if the facts are so clear and convincing that virtually no reasonable person could differ. Tedder v. State, 322 So.2d 908, 910 (Fla.1975) (per curiam). This limitation on the judge's exercise of the jury override provides a crucial protection for the defendant. Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 295, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2299, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977). 11 In light of the limited nature of the jury override, it is clear that the district court's reliance on the judge's status as the sole sentencer was misplaced. While the judge is in fact the only entity that imposes sentence under the Florida scheme, his role is to serve as a buffer where the jury allows emotion to override the duty of a deliberate determination of the appropriate sentence. Cooper v. State, 336 So.2d 1133, 1140 (Fla.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 925, 97 S.Ct. 2200, 53 L.Ed.2d 239 (1977). Because of the deference given the jury's recommended sentence, that recommendation establishes the parameters for all subsequent consideration of the appropriate sentence, including that of the trial judge, and makes [t]he jury's role in an advisory sentencing proceeding ... critical. Adams, 764 F.2d at 1364. 12 Further, the district court's reasoning that the jury did not play a critical role in Adams' sentencing because no presumption of correctness attaches under Florida law to a jury recommendation of death misses the importance of both the jury override and Caldwell. The important consideration is not whether the Tedder presumption of correctness attaches to a sentence recommending death, but whether the judge's statements made it less likely that the jury would recommend life. As this Court recognized in Adams I, [e]very error in instruction which makes it less likely that the jury will recommend a life sentence to some degree deprives the defendant of the protections afforded by the presumption of correctness that attaches to a jury's verdict recommending life imprisonment. 764 F.2d at 1364. When the error involves statements that diminish the jury's sense of responsibility for its sentence, Caldwell makes it clear that an impermissible likelihood the jury will be biased in favor of rendering a sentence of death is created. 105 S.Ct. at 2640. 3 13 Clearly, then, the jury's role in the Florida sentencing process is so crucial that dilution of its sense of responsibility for its recommended sentence constitutes a violation of Caldwell. In fact, the Florida Supreme Court recently has recognized that the concerns expressed in Caldwell apply to the Florida sentencing scheme, stating that [i]t is appropriate to stress to the jury the seriousness which it should attach to its recommendation and that [t]o do otherwise would be contrary to Caldwell v. Mississippi and Tedder v. State. Garcia v. State, 492 So.2d 360, 367 (Fla.1986) (citations omitted). 4