Miller v. Florida

Background

Ernest Lee Miller and his stepbrother William Jent were tried separately for first-degree murder before the same judge. Each case included a sentencing hearing where the jury gave an advisory recommendation: Miller’s jury recommended life and Jent’s jury recommended death. Under Florida law the jury’s decision was advisory and the judge imposed the actual sentence. The motion of the Florida Public Defenders Association to file a brief as a friend of the court was allowed, and the Supreme Court denied review of Miller’s case.

Reasoning

The Court’s action was to deny review rather than decide the merits, so it left the Florida court’s outcome in place. In the record, the sentencing judge explained he relied on a desire for uniformity because Jent’s jury had recommended death. Florida law permits a judge to reject a jury recommendation only in very clear cases, and the judge in Miller’s case explicitly considered the other jury’s recommendation. The record also shows the judge gave little weight to expert testimony about Miller’s dependent personality and excluded some additional psychiatric testimony offered as mitigating evidence.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused to take the case, Miller’s death sentence remains in effect for now. The decision leaves unresolved whether it is constitutional for a judge to impose death after another jury’s death recommendation or to exclude proffered mitigating evidence. Denial of review is not a decision on the constitutional questions themselves and could be revisited in a future case.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented from the denial. Brennan would hold the death penalty always unconstitutional. Marshall would grant review to consider whether a judge may override a jury’s life recommendation based on another jury’s recommendation and to address exclusion of mitigating evidence.