Here is another of those 5 to 4 rulings by the United States
Supreme Court that I have come to loathe.
I find them particularly frustrating because, but for one vote, the
decision would have gone the other way and the law would now be totally
different. Many people are hereinafter
affected. This case pertains to the
matter of David Sattazahn, who, along with his friend Jeffrey Hammer, accosted
a restaurant manager in the parking lot of his restaurant, demanding money and,
when things didn’t work out, Mr. Sattizahn and Mr. Hammer shot and killed the
manager.
In his first trial, Mr. Sattizahn
was convicted of murder, and when it came time to punish, the jury was hung,
deadlocked nine to three in favor of life imprisonment for Mr. Sattizahn,
as opposed to the death penalty. The
judge then imposed a term of life in prison, as required by law in the state of
Pennsylvania, which is where this case took place.
Mr. Sattizahn then filed an appeal
with respect to his conviction, and the Appellate Court granted him a new trial
due to a number of mistakes made by the trial judge. Mr. Sattizahn was retried and again convicted, and at the
punishment phase the jury imposed the death penalty. The Supreme Court of the
State of Pennsylvania upheld both the conviction for murder and the death
sentence, claiming that the nine to three hung jury in favor of life
imprisonment at his initial trial and that judge’s life in prison sentence for
Mr. Sattizahn did not bar the State from seeking the death penalty at the
re-trial.
This is a terrible ruling. Let us say hypothetically that Mr. Sattizahn
didn’t do it. If someone is wrongly
convicted, how can they comfortably appeal their conviction knowing that a more
significant sentence is being put back in play?
In this case, Mr. Sattizahn could
have kept his conviction for murder and spent the rest of his life in prison;
however, he decided he wanted to appeal, or perhaps an attorney guided him to
that decision. Is his benefit for
having a new trial granted to him that he now must face death? This is extremely unfair.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for
the divided Supreme Court, and he stated that “the entry of a life sentence
required by statute when the jury is hung does not create an ‘entitlement’ to
such a sentence.” I think it does – or
at least, it should.
The four dissenting Justices were
led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who stated that this decision “confronts
defendants with a perilous choice of either appealing their convictions and
facing death at their re-trial, or forgoing a potentially meritorious appeal
and letting the life sentence stand.”
My sentiments exactly. No
defendant should ever be put in that position.
For that matter, the death penalty has recently been called into
question more than ever based on the actions of former Governor Ryan of
Illinois, commuting all death sentences to life imprisonment on his last day in
office. As Justice Ginsburg states,
“The death penalty is unique in both its severity and its finality.” And that should not be something brought
back into play merely by a defendant having appealed his conviction. Also weighing in on this matter is Chris
Adams of the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, stating that, “Some
innocent defendants who are sentenced to life may be forced to forego an appeal
of their convictions.”
The law in California is different
than that in Pennsylvania. Here, if the
jury is hung on the issue of sentencing, that issue is brought before a new
jury if the prosecution wishes to make another attempt at attaining the death
penalty. This is very different from
Pennsylvania where a hung jury, by law, requires the judge to impose a life
sentence. In Pennsylvania, in order to
obtain the death sentence, the prosecution needs to get all twelve votes the
first time. In California, if the
prosecutor does not obtain a unanimous ruling the first time, he gets another
bite at the apple.
Death is such an extreme measure
that I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the prosecution getting one bite
at that apple, and if they get all twelve votes, then fine, but if not, a life
sentence should be imposed. That life
sentence should not be subject to being replaced by a sentence of death. People should be free to pursue an appeal of
their matter without the concern that they might win! If they win, they then are going to trial again, and if it goes
bad, they can be put to death. There
are states that have a mandatory appellate process when an individual is
convicted of murder. Those states will
now have to reexamine their policy and/or their statute. One who is convicted might say something
along the lines of, “Please do not appeal for me, I know the law requires it,
but I would rather keep the sentence I have than risk being put to death.”
When it comes to election time,
people often resent the fact that the argument is made that you are not only
voting for a President but you are voting for the Justices he will
appoint. That, however, is true. The President of the United States appoints
the Justices of the United States Supreme Court along with numerous other
Federal justices and/or judges. When
2004 rolls along, and any and every other Presidential election comes up,
please consider that your vote will greatly impact our justice system. If you are content with things the way they
are, then you will probably want to vote for the individual or party in
power. If you would like things to be
different, consider that when you enter the voting booth.
Dr. Charles J. Unger is a criminal defense attorney in the
Glendale law firm of Flanagan, Booth & Unger, and a therapist at the
Foothill Centre for Personal and Family Growth. Mr. Unger writes a bimonthly column on legal and psychological
issues. He can be reached at charlieunger @hotmail.com