LEO LOUIS KACZMAR, III
v.
FLORIDA.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this death penalty case, Justice Sotomayor dissented from the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari to review whether jury instructions in Florida's capital sentencing violated the Eighth Amendment by diminishing jurors' sense of responsibility under Caldwell v. Mississippi. She noted that the Florida Supreme Court had repeatedly failed to address this constitutional challenge raised by multiple death row inmates, and despite hints from prior dissents prompting the Florida court to finally consider the issue, only a plurality of that court reached agreement, leaving the question unresolved.
[1] Jury instructions in a capital case may not diminish the jurors' sense of responsibility for the ultimate determination of death, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
[2] The Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly failed to address significant Eighth Amendment challenges to death sentences raised by capital defendants.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Like a number of other capital defendants in Florida, petitioner Leo Louis Kaczmar has raised an important Eighth Amendment challenge to his death sentence that went unaddressed by the Florida Supreme Court. Specifically, he argues that the jury instructions in his case impermissibly diminished the jurors' sense of responsibility as to the ultimate determination of death, in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). I have thrice dissented from this Court's unwillingness to intervene in the face of the Florida Supreme Court's failure to address this important question. See Guardado v. Florida, 584 U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 1131, 200 L.Ed.2d 729 (2018) ; Middleton v. Florida, 583 U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 829, 200 L.Ed.2d 326 (2018) ; Truehill v. Florida, 583 U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 3, 199 L.Ed.2d 272 (2017). Recently, "[i]n light of the dissenting opinions to the denial of certiorari," the Florida Supreme Court in another capital case finally set out to "explicitly address" the Caldwell claim. Reynolds v. State, --- So.3d ----, n. 8, 2018 WL 1633075, *5, n. 8 (Fla. Apr. 5, 2018) (per curiam ). The resulting opinion, however, gathered the support only of a plurality, so the issue remains without definitive resolution by the Florida Supreme Court. Thus, for the reasons previously stated in Truehill, Middleton, and *1974Guardado, I again respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reynolds v. Florida., 139 S. Ct. 27 (U.S. 2018)…da, 583 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 3, 199 L.Ed.2d 272 (2017) (same). I dissented again after the Florida Supreme Court ultimately did take up the question, and I noted the need for a definitive resolution of the issue. Kaczmar v. Florida, 585 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1973, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018) (same). Of the seven justices of the Florida Supreme Court, only two justices concurred in the court's per curiam opinion and one justice concurred specially with an opinion. Of the remaining four justices, two dissented a…
Authorities Cited
- Truehill v. Florida. Terence Oliver v. Florida., 138 S. Ct. 3 (U.S. 2017)
- Middleton v. Florida. Randy W. Tundidor v. Florida., 138 S. Ct. 829 (U.S. 2018)
- Guardado v. Jones, 138 S. Ct. 1131 (U.S. 2018)
- Foster v. Tatum., 138 S. Ct. 355 (U.S. 2017)
- W.A. Griffin v. Verizon Commc'ns Inc., 138 S. Ct. 1444 (U.S. 2018)