Supreme Court Rules for Death Row Inmate In Case Supported by Stroock as Amicus Counsel
March 6, 2023
Beginning in 2021, a team of Stroock attorneys partnered with LatinoJustice PRLDF to author an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of an Arizona court’s refusal, duration the sentencing of a defendant convicted of murder, to give the jury instructions in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1994 decision in Simmons v. South Carolina. In Simmons, the Court held that where a capital defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue, and the only alternative sentence available is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the sentencing jury must be informed that the defendant is ineligible for parole.
In the sentencing of John Montenegro Cruz, convicted of the 2003 murder of a Tucson police officer, the trial court declined to apply the holding in Simmons and refused to allow the jury to be informed that a life sentence in Arizona would be without parole, despite Cruz’s counsel’s contention that this was in violation of Cruz’s due process rights. The jury recommended a death sentence. Requests for a new trial were denied, appeals up to the federal Circuit Court were exhausted.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. At the merits stage, Stroock submitted an amicus brief on behalf of LatinoJustice and NAACP Legal Defense Fund submitted another amicus brief for the Court’s consideration.
That brief emphasized that a Simmons charge is particularly important to capital defendants of color because social science has shown that (1) many jurors perceive minority defendants as being more “dangerous,” (2) many jurors mistakenly believe that defendants are still eligible for parole, notwithstanding that that the sentence would expressly deny the defendant parole; and (3) the exaggerated fear of dangerousness propels many jurors to impose the death penalty out of the concern that they could allow the defendant to commit further violent acts.
On February 22, 2023, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cruz and remanded the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing at which jurors must be informed that any life sentence imposed will not include the possibility of parole.
Stroock applauds the tireless efforts and dedication of LatinoJustice PRLDEF and NAACP Legal Defense Fund to seek due process for Cruz and defendants like him.
March 6, 2023
Beginning in 2021, a team of Stroock attorneys partnered with LatinoJustice PRLDF to author an amicus brief in support of a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of an Arizona court’s refusal, duration the sentencing of a defendant convicted of murder, to give the jury instructions in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1994 decision in Simmons v. South Carolina. In Simmons, the Court held that where a capital defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue, and the only alternative sentence available is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the sentencing jury must be informed that the defendant is ineligible for parole.
In the sentencing of John Montenegro Cruz, convicted of the 2003 murder of a Tucson police officer, the trial court declined to apply the holding in Simmons and refused to allow the jury to be informed that a life sentence in Arizona would be without parole, despite Cruz’s counsel’s contention that this was in violation of Cruz’s due process rights. The jury recommended a death sentence. Requests for a new trial were denied, appeals up to the federal Circuit Court were exhausted.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. At the merits stage, Stroock submitted an amicus brief on behalf of LatinoJustice and NAACP Legal Defense Fund submitted another amicus brief for the Court’s consideration.
That brief emphasized that a Simmons charge is particularly important to capital defendants of color because social science has shown that (1) many jurors perceive minority defendants as being more “dangerous,” (2) many jurors mistakenly believe that defendants are still eligible for parole, notwithstanding that that the sentence would expressly deny the defendant parole; and (3) the exaggerated fear of dangerousness propels many jurors to impose the death penalty out of the concern that they could allow the defendant to commit further violent acts.
On February 22, 2023, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cruz and remanded the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing at which jurors must be informed that any life sentence imposed will not include the possibility of parole.
Stroock applauds the tireless efforts and dedication of LatinoJustice PRLDEF and NAACP Legal Defense Fund to seek due process for Cruz and defendants like him.
Professionals
