Understanding the 7-5 non-unanimous death recommendation and its constitutional implications
JURY COMPOSITION
On September 16, 2005, after hearing evidence and arguments from both the prosecution and defense, the jury deliberated on whether to recommend death or life imprisonment for Thomas Rigterink. The jury consisted of 12 members, and Florida law at that time required only a majority vote (7 out of 12) to recommend death—not unanimity.
Voted for Death
Voted for Life
THE RECOMMENDATION
The jury recommended death by a narrow 7-5 vote. This meant that five jurors believed Rigterink should receive life imprisonment, not death. Despite this significant dissent, the recommendation was legally sufficient under Florida's death penalty statute at that time. Judge J. Dale Durrance then imposed the death sentence on October 14, 2005, following the jury's recommendation.
Florida's non-unanimous jury death recommendation system created a fundamental constitutional violation under the Sixth Amendment. The problem: a death sentence was being imposed based on a jury recommendation that did not reflect unanimous agreement on the most severe punishment.
JURY UNANIMITY PRINCIPLE
The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that criminal convictions require unanimous jury verdicts. The principle extends to capital sentencing: if a jury cannot unanimously agree that death is the appropriate punishment, the death sentence violates the defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial.
THE FLORIDA STATUTE
Florida's statute allowed judges to impose death sentences based on non-unanimous jury recommendations (7-5, 8-4, etc.). This created a situation where a minority of jurors could effectively be overruled on the question of whether someone should live or die—a power that should rest with the jury, not the judge.
JUDGE'S ROLE
Under Florida law, judges were not bound by jury recommendations. They could impose death even if the jury recommended life, or impose life even if the jury recommended death. However, in practice, judges almost always followed jury recommendations, making the non-unanimous vote the effective determinant of the sentence.
THE LANDMARK RULING
On October 6, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hurst v. Florida, ruling that Florida's non-unanimous jury death recommendation system violated the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that death is different—it is the most severe punishment, and the Sixth Amendment requires that the jury's finding of facts necessary to impose death must be unanimous.
Key Holdings:
RIGTERINK'S RELIEF
On April 6, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court applied the Hurst ruling to Rigterink's case, overturning his death sentence. The court determined that his 7-5 jury recommendation violated the Sixth Amendment under Hurst. Rigterink was granted relief and his case was remanded for resentencing.
SCOPE OF RELIEF
The Hurst ruling affected hundreds of Florida death row inmates. The impact was enormous:
313
Total Florida death row inmates reviewed for Hurst relief
147
Inmates who obtained relief (47% of those reviewed)
2017 - Present
Ongoing resentencing proceedings in Florida courts
SYSTEMIC CHANGE
The Hurst ruling fundamentally changed how Florida imposes death sentences. Going forward, death sentences require either: (1) a unanimous jury recommendation, or (2) a jury finding of aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt with the judge imposing death based on those findings. The non-unanimous jury recommendation system was eliminated.
JURY POWER
The jury is the conscience of the community. When five jurors voted for life and seven voted for death, those five jurors were expressing a legitimate belief that death was not the appropriate punishment. Hurst affirmed that their voices matter—that death sentences cannot be imposed over jury dissent on such a grave question.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION
The Sixth Amendment protects the right to a jury trial. That right includes the right to have the jury—not the judge—make the critical findings necessary to impose the death penalty. Hurst restored that protection by requiring jury unanimity.
FINALITY VS. FAIRNESS
While Hurst created significant resentencing work for Florida courts, it prioritized fairness over finality. The ruling recognized that a death sentence imposed over jury dissent—based on a constitutional violation—cannot stand, even years after conviction.
RIGTERINK'S CASE
Rigterink's 7-5 vote became part of a national conversation about jury power, constitutional rights, and the death penalty. His case exemplifies how a narrow jury recommendation—reflecting genuine disagreement about whether death was appropriate—can be the basis for overturning a death sentence when that system violates the Constitution.
Following the Hurst ruling and the April 6, 2017 overturn of his death sentence, Rigterink remains incarcerated in Florida's prison system pending resentencing. His case is one of 147 affected by Hurst relief, representing a fundamental shift in how Florida imposes capital punishment.
The 7-5 jury vote that once sealed his fate became the basis for his constitutional relief—a reminder that even narrow jury disagreements can reflect serious constitutional concerns about the fairness and legality of the death penalty.