Harvard v. Florida

Background

The defendant, William Lanay Harvard, was convicted in 1974 of first-degree murder and a jury recommended death in a separate sentencing hearing. Under Florida law the jury’s recommendation was advisory and the judge imposed death after finding two aggravating facts. The Florida Supreme Court later learned the judge had considered confidential material (a presentence report and military records) that had not been shown to the defense and vacated the sentence, sending the case back for a limited hearing.

Reasoning

On remand the original judge held a narrowly focused hearing in which he provided the undisclosed material and allowed the defendant only to rebut or explain it; the judge refused to consider broader evidence and reimposed the death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed that result. The Supreme Court of the United States denied review of the case, leaving the state-court rulings in place. Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented from the denial and argued that the narrow hearing before the same judge could not cure the due-process problem created when a sentencer relied on undisclosed information.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the state-court outcome — the judge’s reimposed death sentence after a limited remand — remains in effect for this defendant. The decision, as presented here, does not resolve the larger legal question on the national level because the Supreme Court declined to decide the merits.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall argued that Gardner requires a new full sentencing before a different judge, not a limited rebuttal hearing, because fairness, credibility, and impartiality concerns cannot be fixed by the narrow procedure used here.