Grim v. Florida

(1) Whether a violation of Hurst v. Florida can be ruled harmless beyond a reasonable doubt based solely on a pre-Hurst "advisory" jury"s unanimous vote to recommend the death penalty to the judge in a case in which the advisory jurors heard none of the available mitigating evidence; (2) whether the Florida Supreme Court"s per se harmless-error rule for Hurst claims violates the Eighth Amendment in light of Caldwell v. Mississippi by relying exclusively on the number of advisory jurors who recommended the death penalty to the judge, when those jurors were repeatedly instructed that the judge alone, notwithstanding the recommendation of the majority of jurors, would make the findings of fact required for a death sentence under state law and bear ultimate responsibility for a death sentence; (3) whether the Florida Supreme Court"s per se harmless-error rule for Hurst claims, which relies entirely on pre-Hurst advisory jury recommendations that did not fulfill Sixth Amendment requirements as to any element of a Florida death sentence, contradicts Sullivan v. Louisiana and Neder v. United States; and (4) whether, when a defendant proffers uncontested evidence and requests a hearing on whether a state could meet its burden of establishing that a Hurst violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the Florida Supreme Court"s summary application of its per se harmless-error rule impermissibly shifts the burden of proof and contravenes the Supreme Court"s admonitions that harmless-error review cannot be "automatic or mechanical," Barclay v. Florida; must include consideration of the whole record, Rose v. Clark; and must be accompanied by "a detailed explanation based on the record," Clemons v. Mississippi.