WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday about an Arizona procedural rule that prevented a man from challenging the death sentence imposed on him for murdering a police officer.
In 2005, John Montenegro Cruz was convicted of first-degree murder for killing a Tucson police officer in 2003 and received the death sentence.
Cruz argued that the trial judge repeatedly denied him the right to inform the jury that if he received a life sentence, he would be ineligible for parole. Essentially, he received the death sentence because jurors thought that if he got a life sentence, he would be let out on parole.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1994 in Simmons v. South Carolina that if a defendant who could receive a life sentence is ineligible for parole, the jury must be notified of that fact. The justices said that rule should be applied in cases where the “defendant’s future dangerousness” is discussed, which applied to Cruz.
However, the Arizona Supreme Court in 2008 affirmed Cruz’s conviction and ruled Simmons did not apply to Arizona because the state’s sentencing law is substantially different from sentencing guidelines in other states.
Justice Elena Kagan said she found Arizona’s dismissal of Simmons disrespectful to the Supreme Court.
“It sounds like you’re thumbing your nose at us,” Kagan said.
The Supreme Court in 2016 overturned the Arizona Supreme Court decision in Lynch v. Arizona, saying that its ruling in the 1994 case had always applied to Arizona.
Cruz’s attorneys petitioned for post-conviction relief, arguing this ruling formally implemented Simmons in Arizona law, “a significant change in the law” that “would probably overturn (his) conviction or sentence.” Under Arizona criminal procedure rules this is one of the stipulations needed for a defendant to petition for post-conviction relief.
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the petition, ruling that Lynch did not present a significant change in the law, just a change in the application of the law, so Cruz did not have standing to petition for post-conviction relief.
That reasoning met with apparent skepticism among many of the Supreme Court justices.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked why Lynch did not present a significant change in the law if previous court decisions were overturned and were considered a significant change. Chief Deputy Attorney General Joseph Kanefield kept repeating that this was a unique case.
Kagan questioned why Arizona argued that before 2016, Simmons didn’t apply to the state, so it didn’t have to give Cruz those rights in his trial, but Arizona also argued that the earlier ruling has always applied, but it’s not a significant change in the law that warrants post-conviction relief.
Kagan said Arizona can’t have it both ways: “Whatever you say, you win.”
Justice Samuel Alito emphasized Arizona’s distinction between a change in law and an application of the law and how it applied in the Cruz case, but Justice Amy Coney Barrett argued this distinction was just “splitting hairs.”
Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin agreed with Jackson, Kagan and Barrett.
“It is striking that they still have not explained why they are so resistant to giving Cruz his Simmons rights, rights that they now say he was always entitled to,” Feigin said.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich told reporters after the oral arguments that the justices focused on the wrong issues in the case and that the state does not owe Cruz relief.
“Post-conviction relief procedures aren’t even something this state has to offer. Arizona in some ways is being punished by affording defendants additional opportunities to make their case,” Brnovich said.
Andrew Case, senior counsel for LatinoJustice, told Capital News Service that part of the reason Cruz was even given the death penalty in the first place was racial bias.
“Studies show that jurors as a whole will be more susceptible to being convinced that a Black and Latino defendant will pose a future danger than a white defendant,” Case said.
Case also hopes this case brings attention to the death penalty in general and helps end this “gruesome and horrific process.”
Brnovich disagreed, telling reporters that the individuals on death row deserve to be there because they are guilty and “have committed heinous crimes” and Cruz is no exception.
The Supreme Court will likely release its decision in mid-June.