`
`
`
`1
`
` Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2017)
`
`BREYER, J., dissenting
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`_________________
` Nos. 16–9448 and 17–5083
`_________________
` QUENTIN MARCUS TRUEHILL
`
`v.
`FLORIDA
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
`
`
`COURT OF FLORIDA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16–9448
`
`
`
`17–5083
`
`
`TERENCE OLIVER
`
`v.
`FLORIDA
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
`
`
`COURT OF FLORIDA
`
`
` [October 16, 2017]
`
` The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.
`
`
` JUSTICE BREYER, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.
`
`
`
`
`In part for the reasons set forth in my opinion in Hurst
`
`v. Florida, 577 U. S. __, __ (2016) (concurring opinion in
`
`judgment), I would vacate and remand for the Florida
`Supreme Court to address the Eighth Amendment issue in
`these cases.
`I therefore join the dissenting opinion of
`JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR in full.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
` Cite as: 583 U. S. ____ (2017)
`
` SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`
`
`
`
`
`16–9448
`
`_________________
` Nos. 16–9448 and 17–5083
`_________________
` QUENTIN MARCUS TRUEHILL
`
` v.
`FLORIDA
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
`
`
`COURT OF FLORIDA
`
`
`17–5083
`
`
`TERENCE OLIVER
`
`v.
`FLORIDA
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
`
`
`COURT OF FLORIDA
`
`
` [October 16, 2017]
`
` JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG
`
`
` and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting from the denial of
`
`
` certiorari.
`At least twice now, capital defendants in Florida have
`
`
`raised an important Eighth Amendment challenge to their
`
`
` death sentences that the Florida Supreme Court has failed
`to address. Specifically, those capital defendants, peti-
`tioners here, argue that the jury instructions in their cases
`impermissibly diminished the jurors’ sense of responsibil-
`ity as to the ultimate determination of death by repeatedly
`
`
`emphasizing that their verdict was merely advisory. “This
`Court has always premised its capital punishment deci-
`
`sions on the assumption that a capital sentencing jury
`recognizes the gravity of its task,” and we have thus found
`
`unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment comments
`that “minimize the jury’s sense of responsibility for deter-
`mining the appropriateness of death.” Caldwell v. Missis-
`sippi, 472 U. S. 320, 341 (1985).
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`TRUEHILL v. FLORIDA
`
` SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
`
`
`
`
` Although the Florida Supreme Court has rejected a
`
`Caldwell challenge to its jury instructions in capital cases
`in the past, it did so in the context of its prior sentencing
`scheme, where “the court [was] the final decision-maker
`and the sentencer—not the jury.” Combs v. State, 525 So.
`2d 853, 857 (1988). In Hurst v. Florida, 577 U. S. ___, ___
`(2016) (slip op., at 10), however, we held that process,
`
`“which required the judge alone to find the existence of an
`
`aggravating circumstance,” to be unconstitutional.
`With the rationale underlying its previous rejection of
`
`the Caldwell challenge now undermined by this Court in
`Hurst, petitioners ask that the Florida Supreme Court
`revisit the question. The Florida Supreme Court, how-
`ever, did not address that Eighth Amendment challenge.
`
`This Court has not in the past hesitated to vacate and
`
`
`remand a case when a court has failed to address an im-
`portant question that was raised below. See, e.g., Beer v.
`
`
`United States, 564 U. S. 1050 (2011) (remanding for con-
` sideration of unaddressed preclusion claim); Youngblood v.
`
`West Virginia, 547 U. S. 867 (2006) (per curiam) (remand-
`ing for consideration of unaddressed claim under Brady v.
`
`
` Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963)). Because petitioners here
`raised a potentially meritorious Eighth Amendment chal-
`lenge to their death sentences, and because the stakes in
`capital cases are too high to ignore such constitutional
`
`challenges, I dissent from the Court’s refusal to correct
`
`that error.
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
