Florida Supreme Court denies James Herard's direct appeal
James Herard was sentenced to death in 2015 under Florida’s pre-Hurst capital sentencing scheme following the jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 8-4. This was his direct appeal.
On Wednesday, the Court released several opinions, one of which was in a capital case.
James Herard was sentenced to death in 2015 under Florida’s pre-Hurst capital sentencing scheme following the jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 8-4.1 This was his direct appeal.
Why did the Court’s decision take 9 years?
Herard’s Notice of Appeal was filed in 2015; however, several procedural issues delayed the Court’s ruling. In 2016, the Court relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court due to a conflict with Herard’s counsel for reappointment of counsel.
Afterward, there were several motions for extensions of time for both briefing and to complete the record. Briefing on Herard’s claims wasn't filed until 2020/2021. Oral argument was originally scheduled for August 2022 but was continued because in 2022, the Court again relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court for purposes of completing the record.
Orla argument was rescheduled for November and December 2022 but continued again. In 2023, the parties filed supplemental briefing. Oral argument was then held in November 2023, after the Court’s decision in Poole changed the analysis related to the jury’s nonunanimous recommendation for death.
The Court’s Decision
On direct appeal, Herard raised five claims:
(1) denying Herard’s due process-based motion to dismiss; (2) denying Herard’s motions to suppress incriminating statements; (3) admitting physical evidence Herard claims was unrelated to the crimes charged; (4) excluding Herard’s expert witness testimony about false confessions; and (5) sentencing Herard in a manner that violated the Sixth and Eighth Amendments.
In a per curiam decision issued Wednesday, the Court denied claims 1-5 related to the guilt phase. On claim 2, the Court referenced its recent decision in Penna v. State, which limited defendants’ Miranda rights, as TFDP covered here.
As to Herard’s death sentence, the Court relied on its 2023 decision in Poole to hold that “Herard’s death sentence satisfies . . . constitutional requirements.” As to Herard’s argument that the Court should recede from Poole, th eCourt wrote that Herard “offered no good reason” for the Court to do so and, therefore, it “decline[s] the invitation.”
Finally, the Court determined that the evidence was sufficient to support Herard’s conviction.
Justice Labarga concurred in result, reiterating his dissent from Penna as well as his dissent from the Court’s decision in Lawrence that “receded from its decades-long practice of conducting proportionality review in cases involving direct appeals of sentences of death.”
The full decision can be downloaded here.