Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Death Penalty Procedures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves procedures to implement Atkins ruling, adds sentencing remand option
Summary
Senate Bill 8, drafted in response to Atkins v. Virginia, passed after a friendly amendment clarifying appellate remand and sentencing options when mental-retardation determinations are reversed on appeal.
Senate Bill 8, the Legislature's response to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, advanced on Feb. 7 with a bipartisan, floor-approved amendment aimed at protecting defendants while preserving judicial efficiency.
Senator Gladwell introduced the bill as a procedural framework to ensure mentally retarded defendants are not executed, explaining the bill places the initial burden of proof on the defendant and assigns early determinations to a judge. Senator Hilliard described a friendly amendment (Amendment No. 3) addressing sentencing outcomes when an appellate court later finds that a mental-retardation determination was incorrect; the amendment provides the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court the option, on reversal, to remand for resentencing, with a presumption favoring life without parole but permitting the sentencing judge discretion in certain circumstances.
Hilliard explained the amendment was designed to reduce the risk of manifest injustice in rare cases where the record suggests the sentence is inappropriate given a reversal on mental-retardation grounds. "...the Court of Appeals upon reversing the matter, if they find manifest injustice by that type of a sentence in the case from the record, they can remand it back to the sentencing judge and he would have the option...either again, the presumption being life without parole or life," Hilliard said.
Senators discussed whether a judge or a jury should make initial mental-retardation determinations; the Senate left that responsibility with the judge for the initial phase, citing concerns about retrials and unanimous jury determinations. The bill, as amended, passed third reading on a roll call (25 ayes, 0 nays, 4 absent) and was referred to the House for further consideration.
Supporters described the amendment as protective of due process while reducing repeated trials and appellate inefficiency; defense advocates who had watched the changes said they were reassured by the added sentencing remand option.
