Yesterday, in an article entitled “Florida Death Penalty Experts Concerned About Court Ruling,” written by Tamara Lush and published by the Associated Press and shared in the New York Times, Terence Lenamon explained his take on the curveball ruling in Poole.

• Terry points to his own docket as an example, where he has represented several clients who were granted re-sentencing hearings post-Hurst. (We’ve discussed a few of these cases here on the blog.)
• He explains how everything is in flux for those who have been successful in seeking re-sentencing under what was considered dependable law as laid down in Hurst.

Read the full AP article, which includes opinions and thoughts from other nationally-known death penalty experts including Robert Dunham of the DPIC (Death Penalty Information Center) here.   

Bad, Bad News

As Terry told me yesterday, as well as when he was interviewed by the AP yesterday, Poole is “bad, bad news” from a death penalty defense perspective.  It remains to be seen how serious its full impact will be upon both present and future death penalty defense cases.

Procedurally, the ball is in the prosecutors’ court.  Across the State of Florida, each state attorney will have to draft and file a formal motion in any re-sentencing hearing that removed the death penalty based upon the Hurst precedent.

For details on the new Florida Supreme Court decision, read our discussion (which includes a link to the full opinion) in yesterday’s post.

For more on Hurst, see:

• Death Penalty Information Center Introduces Great Site Revamp: Continued Tracking of Hurst v. Florida
• Florida Death Penalty, Hurst v. Florida, and Three SCOTUS Justices
• Florida Death Row Inmates Getting Review After Hurst
• Florida Supreme Court Rules in Hurst v. Florida: Unconstitutional