In June, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Santiago death penalty decision in State v. Peeler, 321 Conn. 375. State v. Santiago, 318 Conn. 1, decided in August 2015, had declared the death penalty unconstitutional by a 4-3 vote. The fourth vote was supplied by retired Justice Flemming Norcott Jr., who was under 70 when the case was argued and therefore was still eligible to vote. However, Justice Richard Robinson, who had been sworn in when Norcott turned 70 in 2013, sat this January when Peeler was argued on the question whether the 5-month-old Santiago decision should be overruled. By a 5-2 vote, Peeler said no.
The three remaining justices in the Santiago majority mostly relied on the reasoning of Santiago, with a brief reliance at the end of their concurring opinion in Peeler on stare decisis. The chief justice, a dissenter in Santiago, relied in Peeler entirely on stare decisis. Her view was that the court’s credibility would be hurt because the sole basis for overruling Santiago would be perceived to be the change in membership on the court. Robinson also relied heavily on stare decisis. Although his opinion is not clear, it appears to be based on his view that Santiago was not clearly wrong. Justices Peter Zarella and Carmen Espinosa dissented on the ground that Santiago was clearly wrong.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
