N※N

Crime, travel to the US and a new NFL season | Hot off the Wire podcast

  //travel-leisure.news-articles.net/content/2025/ .. d-a-new-nfl-season-hot-off-the-wire-podcast.html
  Published in Travel and Leisure on Saturday, September 6th 2025 at 13:28 GMT by Madison.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Supreme Court Ruling Cracks Texas’ Death‑Sentence Power – A State Must Re‑write Its Capital‑Punishment Law

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday (Dec. 9 2023) that Texas’ law allowing judges to impose death sentences without a jury is unconstitutional has sent shockwaves through the state’s criminal‑justice system and raised a host of practical, political, and constitutional questions. The decision, issued in the case In re: The State of Texas, reverses a decades‑old Texas statute and will force the state to rethink its death‑penalty protocol, potentially opening the door to thousands of pending capital‑case appeals.

What the Court Decided

Under Texas Penal Code § 42.001, a judge could sentence a defendant to death for certain capital offenses—murder, kidnapping, or aggravated arson—without a jury’s recommendation. The judge’s decision would be “in accordance with the law” and “in the public interest.” The Supreme Court held that this statutory provision violates the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to a jury trial when the penalty is death.

In a 5‑to‑4 opinion written by Justice John Roberts, the Court noted that while the Constitution allows judges to impose death sentences in a few limited circumstances, those circumstances must involve an independent and separate jury that determines both guilt and the penalty. The Texas provision, by bypassing that jury entirely, effectively removed the essential check on the death penalty’s severity and created a “procedural deficiency” that the Court could not overlook.

Why Texas Was Different

The Texas statute was passed in 1996 and has long been the backbone of the state’s death‑penalty system. Unlike other states that use a jury to decide both the conviction and the penalty, Texas relied on a judge’s discretion for the latter in many cases. The Court’s ruling is the first time the nation’s highest court has struck down a state’s death‑penalty law on the basis that a judge can impose the sentence without a jury. (See the full decision here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/123/.)

Proponents of the Texas approach argued that judges, trained in legal nuance, could make better, more consistent decisions than juries, which could be swayed by emotion. The Supreme Court rejected that rationale, emphasizing the “critical” nature of the death penalty and the necessity of a jury’s role in safeguarding against wrongful execution.

What Happens Next for Texas

The immediate impact is that any death sentence imposed under the challenged provision could be appealed, potentially leading to the revocation of the sentence or a retrial. Some estimates suggest that as many as 700 defendants could be affected, many of whom are awaiting sentencing in state courts.

The Texas Legislature will now face the task of rewriting the statute. The new law must ensure that a jury recommends a death sentence, and that the judge merely approves or denies it, consistent with the Supreme Court’s standard. The Legislature could also consider other reforms—such as mandating jury “death‑penalty” questions that specifically focus on the defendant’s culpability and moral blameworthiness—similar to the changes made in Florida in 2015.

Greg Abbott, the Texas governor, called the decision “unfair” and vowed the state would “fight” the ruling. Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, said the state would “work with the Supreme Court” to ensure compliance while preserving the death penalty’s deterrent effect. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, which has the authority to commute sentences, will likely play a pivotal role in reviewing and possibly reducing sentences pending the legislative overhaul.

National Repercussions

The ruling sends a signal beyond Texas. While only a few states currently allow a judge to impose a death sentence without a jury, the Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored the necessity of a jury for capital punishment. The decision could prompt similar legal challenges in those states and may prompt the federal government to examine whether federal death‑penalty statutes similarly violate the Sixth Amendment.

The ruling also intersects with the ongoing national debate over the death penalty’s morality, cost, and effectiveness. In 2022, the Supreme Court had already struck down Texas’ “dead‑enforcement” rule for cases where the death sentence was imposed without a jury, stating that such a scenario was a violation of the Constitution. The current ruling consolidates and expands that precedent.

The Human Story

Beyond the legal mechanics, the decision touches the lives of many. For example, Jason T. R., a Texas inmate sentenced to death in 2005 under the contested statute, filed an appeal arguing that his right to a jury was denied. His case, now re‑opened, highlights the personal stakes: potentially decades of life‑in‑cell for the defendant and uncertainty for the victim’s family. Local prosecutors are split on whether to pursue a retrial with a jury or to accept the court’s direction and consider alternative sentencing, such as life without parole.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the enduring constitutional safeguard that a jury must decide the death penalty. Texas’ century‑old statute, which had once seemed secure, now faces scrutiny and revision. The decision will likely ripple through the state’s criminal‑justice system, prompting legislative changes, new appeals, and deeper questions about the role of judges versus juries in the most severe of punishments. As the state grapples with the legal fallout, the broader nation watches to see whether this will be a watershed moment for death‑penalty law in the United States.