Those working to label the state’s death penalty unconstitutional faced a barrage of questions from Delaware Supreme Court Justices Wednesday morning.
The hearing before the Delaware Supreme Court has been months in the making, ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Florida’s former capital punishment program unconstitutional in January.
Florida’s system is similar to Delaware’s and in February, the courts have put a hold on all pending death penalty cases.
Most critically, the case, Hurst vs. Florida, found it’s necessary for juries to be the lone arbiters of whether or not a death sentence should be imposed instead of making a recommendation.
Delaware juries have to find there’s at least one aggravating factor to open up the possibility of a death sentence, but right now, further weighing of the evidence in a case is up to a judge.
Assistant Public Defender Santino Ceccotti, who argued the case to overturn the current system, took the brunt of questioning, which largely focused on interpretations of the Sixth and Eighth Amendments, which deal with public trials and cruel and unusual punishments, respectively.
“The question is, what does it take to get death in Delaware and I think, clearly after [Hurst v. Florida], we now know that and the question is whether Delaware agrees with the Supreme Court or not, which we’ll find out when they issue a decision,” Ceccotti said.
Chief Justice Leo Strine repeatedly asked for a historical perspective from both sides on whether or not judges have generally been responsible for choosing whether or not a defendant is sent to the gallows.
Neither could come up with an answer.
Delaware and Alabama are the only current “hybrid” capital punishment systems in the country. Florida lawmakers quickly amended their law after the Supreme Court deision to avoid delaying pending executions.
Should Delaware’s justices strike down the state’s capital punishment system, lawmakers could restructure it.
That would be unlikely, as the Senate has narrowly voted to abolish the statute twice in the past four years. House lawmakers, however, have consistently blocked repeal efforts.
A ruling is expected in the coming months.
Edit: A previous version of this story implied Hurst v. Florida required juries to solely weigh aggravating and mitigating factors when choosing to impose a death sentence. Changes have been made to clarify a jury's role is "...to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death," as Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote in her opinion.
