The last case on the June calendar, announced today, might be the most significant of the seven to be heard next month. A reversal of the death penalty in People v. McDaniel could portend the vacating of many other California capital sentences.
Last year, the court asked the Attorney General for supplemental briefing on whether “Penal Code section 1042 and article I, section 16 of the California Constitution require that the jury unanimously determine beyond a reasonable doubt factually disputed aggravating evidence and the ultimate penalty verdict. If so, was appellant prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to so instruct the jury?”
The beyond-a-reasonable-doubt issue in particular, more so than the unanimity issue, if decided in the defendant’s favor, might lead to a future wholesale reversal of death sentences, including possibly in habeas corpus proceedings for sentences that have already been affirmed on direct appeal.
In the past, the court has held it is not necessary that a jury in a capital case unanimously determine beyond a reasonable doubt factually disputed aggravating evidence and the ultimate penalty verdict. And, even though signaling by its supplemental briefing order that it is considering a reassessment of the rule, the court has been summarily rejecting challenges to that precedent, most recently just two weeks ago.
The importance of the court’s supplemental briefing order is underlined by amicus curiae briefs in support of the defendant filed by Governor Gavin Newsom and by six present or former district attorneys. They are among the nine amicus briefs filed on both sides in the case. Additionally, the Los Angeles Times has asked the court to use the McDaniel case to end capital punishment in the state.
The court will likely file its opinion in McDaniel by August 30.
Related:
Is the Supreme Court indirectly holding up any attempt to empty California’s death row?
Governor Newsom’s death penalty actions shouldn’t affect the Supreme Court . . . yet