|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania
On April 12, 1987, David Allen Sattazahn and Jeffrey Hammer, set out to rob Richard Boyer, who was the manager of a restaurant. ... In 1989, Hammer finally made a statement that accused both Sattazahn and himself of committing the crime. Hammer’s testimony against Sattazahn granted him a plea bargain for only a third-degree murder. Now all fingers were pointing to Sattazahn, and he was guilty of first-degree murder (Czernecki, 127). ... And according to Pennsylvania law, that meant an automatic life term. ... In the Pennsylvania law it has been declared:
" (iv) the verdict must be a sentence of death
if the jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance . ... And this time again, Pennsylvania filed a notice purposing to seek the death penalty (Gearan, 1). ... Sattazahn had notable history of criminal penalties, consisting of the threat or perhaps even use of violence to the individual, which would include guilty pleas to a murder, and a burglary entered following the first trial. Sattazahn tried to hinder Pennsylvania from pursuing the death penalty and also from implying the second negative circumstance(s) on the second trial. However, the trial court denied the proposition, the Superior Court accepted the denial, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court refuse to review the ruling, Commonwealth v. Sattazahn (Daily Journal, 5). ... So not only was the verdict of guilt settled by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but also the sentence of death on retrial (Czernecki, 128). ... Martorano, the court came to the conclusion that neither the Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Due Process Clause hindered Pennsylvania from questing the death penalty at petitioners retrial. ... However, the case of Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania introduces the questions whether the Double Jeopardy Clause or the Due Process Clause should hinder the request for a capital sentence (Czernecki, 131).
The federal statute governing authority to the death sentence are alike when referring to the Pennsylvania statute (being questioned in this case) and urges the trial court to enter a non-capital sentence when the jury is unable to reach an agreed verdict on the proper sentence. Consequently, if the defendant’s first sentencing jury had in agreement concluded that Pennsylvania had not been successful to prove adequate proof, that conclusion would serve as an "acquittal" of the greater offense, which would prohibit Pennsylvania from appealing Sattazahn on that greater offense on retrial (Daily Journal, 7).
Approximate Word count = 1752
Approximate Pages = 7
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|