Arizona
Supreme Court rules for Arizona inmate in death penalty case
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Courtroom dominated Wednesday {that a} man on Arizona’s dying row ought to be resentenced as a result of jurors in his case have been wrongly informed that the one means to make sure he would by no means stroll free was to condemn him to dying.
The 5-4 choice, in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, stated John Montenegro Cruz ought to get a brand new penalty part of his trial the place it’s made clear to jurors that he’s ineligible for parole if he’s sentenced to life in jail, as a substitute of dying.
The case is vital not just for Cruz, but additionally for different Arizona dying row inmates whose juries acquired comparable misinformation. Arizona at the moment has roughly 100 individuals on its dying row. It was not clear what number of of these may be eligible for a brand new sentencing listening to.
Cruz had argued that the jury ought to have been knowledgeable he could be ineligible for parole if spared from dying and given a life sentence. A choose rejected that request and the state stated Cruz didn’t make the exact requests he wanted to underneath Supreme Courtroom precedent.
Earlier story: Arizona Supreme Courtroom denies resentencing for dying row inmate
John Montenegro Cruz was convicted of first-degree homicide within the taking pictures dying of Officer Patrick Hardesty. The 40-year-old officer was killed whereas pursuing Cruz throughout a hit-and-run investigation.
Not less than one juror has stated that had she identified {that a} “life sentence with out parole” was an alternative choice to dying, she “would have voted for that possibility.”
Cruz was convicted of the 2003 homicide of a Tucson police officer, Patrick Hardesty. Hardesty and one other officer have been investigating a hit-and-run accident that led them to Cruz, who tried to flee and shot Hardesty 5 instances.
A 1994 Supreme Courtroom case, Simmons v. South Carolina, says that in sure dying penalty circumstances, jurors have to be informed that selecting a life sentence means life with out the potential of parole. That’s required when prosecutors argue that the defendant will pose a risk to society sooner or later.
Arizona courts refused to use the choice. In a 2016 case, Lynch v. Arizona, the Supreme Courtroom informed Arizona immediately that it wanted to adjust to Simmons. Cruz says Arizona has continued to defy the excessive courtroom.
The case is Cruz v. Arizona, 21-846.
Extra Arizona headlines