New sentencing trials denied
By Carol Sowers E-mail
The Arizona Republic Thurs, February 27, 2003The Arizona Supreme Court refused Wednesday to give 90 death row inmates another shot at life in light of the state's new death penalty law.
The inmates, who are in the last stages of their appeals, wanted new sentencing trials where juries would decide whether they should die as required by the state's new law.
The opinion, triggered by petitions filed in July, is expected to clear the way for trial court judges to rule on the inmates' long-pending appeals.
"Everything was on hold awaiting this decision," said Kent Cattani, the state attorney general's chief counsel for capital litigation.
Daniel Maynard, one of the attorneys appointed by the court to represent the inmates, was angered by the decision.
"The idea that we would execute inmates under an unconstitutional law is abhorrent," he said.
The legal confusion began last June when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Arizona's death penalty law was unconstitutional because judges, not juries, handed down death sentences. The court found such systems denied defendants a trial by a jury of their peers.
A new state law was enacted in August to reflect the high court's decision, but it did not clear up questions on whether Arizona’s old statute would be re-sentenced by juries.
Justice Ruth MacGregor, who wrote the opinion released Wednesday for the Arizona court, said that the U.S. Constitution does not forbid or require new sentencing trials. She also wrote that a judge's Sentence is likely as fair as one landed down by a jury.
New sentencing trials, she wrote "would impose a substantial and unjustified burden on Arizona's administration of justice," adding that many witnesses would no longer be available to testify.
The justices have not decided whether the other 27 death row inmates in earlier stages of their appeals should be resentenced by a Jury.
