Patten v. Florida

Background

The defendant, Robert Patten, was convicted of first-degree murder and faced the death penalty. During sentencing deliberations the jury reported a 6-to-6 deadlock and asked, “What now?” The judge gave an Allen charge (an instruction urging jurors to continue deliberating). After more discussion the jury returned a 7-to-5 recommendation for death, and the court imposed a death sentence. The Florida Supreme Court later found the Allen charge improper, vacated the death sentence, and remanded for a new sentencing jury. Patten argued the Double Jeopardy Clause (the rule that prevents being tried twice for the same thing) barred a second sentencing; that motion was denied below.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court declined to review the Florida decision and denied the petition for certiorari, leaving the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in place. The central legal issue raised in dissents was whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents the State from making a defendant endure a second sentencing jury after the first jury’s deadlock (which Florida law treated as a life recommendation). The opinions discuss earlier cases saying a life decision can be final in some systems, Florida’s rule allowing judges to override jury recommendations, and Florida’s high standard for a judge to override a jury’s life recommendation.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the Florida court’s vacation of the death sentence and remand for a new sentencing jury remain effective. The broader national question — whether double jeopardy bars a second capital sentencing after a jury’s effective life recommendation — remains unresolved by this Court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan argued he would vacate the death sentence because he views the death penalty as always unconstitutional. Justice Marshall would have granted review to decide the double jeopardy issue described above.