Ring v. Arizona: who decides death?

In the United States, the right to a jury trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment states, in part, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that the “Constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to have a jury determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, his guilt of every element of the crime with which he is charged.” In Walton v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an Arizona statute permitting a judge to determine whether the death penalty should be imposed on a capital defendant did not violate the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to a trial by jury. In particular, the Court found that aggravating factors necessary to impose the death penalty were not elements of the offense and instead served as circumstances for consideration by a judge when deciding between the penalties of life imprisonment or death. In contrast, the Court held in Apprendi v. New Jersey, that a judge could not make findings that would increase a defendant’s sentence beyond the maximum, because that was comparable with an additional conviction. In Apprendi, the defendant was convicted of second-degree possession of a firearm, an offense carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years under New Jersey law. The sentencing judge found that Apprendi’s crime was racially motivated and therefore under New Jersey law triggered the application of a hate crime enhancement. The trial judge sentenced Apprendi to 12 years, two years over the maximum sentence that the jury could impose but for the hate crime enhancement. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Apprendi’s sentence violated his right to a jury determination that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of the crime with which he was charged. The Court noted, “If a State makes an increase in a defendant’s authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt” (Ref. 3, pp 482–83). The Apprendi Court appreciated that a conflict could be found between its holdings in Apprendi and Walton, but stated that the rulings could be reconciled. The key distinction was that the Arizona statutory scheme that was at issue in Walton provided that a conviction of first-degree murder carried a maximum sentence of death. The Court stated: