Legislative Update: House Subcommittee Hearing on Capital Sexual Battery; Gaskin Warrant Update
The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee heard the House's capital sexual battery bill, and the circuit court denied Louis Gaskin's postconviction motion seeking relief from his pending death warrant.
Another full day of activity to report on...
The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee heard the House’s capital sexual battery bill—the counterpart to Monday’s hearing in the Senate.
The circuit court denied Gaskin’s postconviction motion related to his pending death warrant.
Let’s dive in.
House Criminal Justice Subcommittee Hearing on Capital Sexual Battery Bill
Yesterday, the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee heard the House’s capital sexual battery bill (HB 1297). A video of the hearing can be found here. For more background on the bill, see this post.
Under the latest amendment, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2023.
The discussion at the hearing was fairly similar to the discussion at the Senate hearing on Monday.
Eighth Amendment
A lot of the discussion focused on the clear conflict between the bill and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The bill’s sponsor, Representative Baker, in answering questions, explained the Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana as the justices in the majority using their “independent judgment” and not based in any constitutional law. She also suggested that the “evolving standards of decency” standard upon which the Court’s decision was based is one that could be viewed as relative to Florida only.
As the testimony at the hearing from the Florida Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers (FACDL) corrected, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy was based on the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. Indeed, the “evolving standards of decency” standard is used to determine whether an Eighth Amendment violation has occurred. Also, U.S. Supreme Court precedent indicates that the standard is one that should be viewed through a national lens.
Ultimately, though, some of the Committee members agreed that the bill, as written, is unconstitutional.
Deterrence
Again, one of the main justifications for the bill was deterrence—that instituting this bill will send a strong signal to future offenders, who will be deterred from committing these crimes because of the potential of being sentenced to death.
As discussed in this post related to first-degree murder, though, the evidence does not support this reasoning.
Sixth Amendment
Representative Baker confirmed, as in the Senate, that the sentencing procedure presented in the bill is intended to be the same as the sentencing procedure presented in the Jury Recommendation bills that amend Florida’s existing capital sentencing scheme.
One Representative commented that, as presented, the bill violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s line of decisions in Apprendi, Ring, and Hurst. (For more on these cases, see Part I of the five-part series explaining what happened in 2016 with Florida’s capital sentencing scheme.) In other words, he was commenting that the bill stands in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
The bill was reported favorably by a vote of 14-3.
Gaskin Warrant Update
On Monday, the circuit court denied Louis Gaskin’s postconviction motion seeking relief from his pending death warrant, in which he raised four claims.
The original post on the warrant is here.
The post on the scheduling order related to warrant litigation is here.
The circuit court did not hold an evidentiary hearing and issued a two-page order denying all claims. The case now goes straight to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Here's a news article on the ruling. Also,
is covering the warrant litigation as it unfolds, so go follow.