Whether a judge-imposed death sentence that violates Hurst is a structural error requiring reversal of the sentence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Sixth Amendment requires that a jury, not a judge, find every fact necessary to sentence a defendant to death. In Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016), this Court held that Florida’s capitalsentencing scheme violated the Sixth Amendment because it gave juries only an advisory role. The Court held that the “distinction” between no jury verdict and an “advisory jury verdict” is “immaterial” because the jury did “not make specific factual findings” and the judge thus did not have “the assistance of a jury’s findings of fact” when sentencing. Notwithstanding Hurst’s holding that an advisory jury verdict is tantamount to no jury verdict at all, the Florida Supreme Court has held that every Hurst error is harmless if the advisory jury recommended death by a 12-0 vote because a “jury unanimously [found] all of the necessary facts for the imposition of a death sentence by virtue of its unanimous recommendation.” The questions presented are: 1. Whether a judge-imposed death sentence that violates Hurst is a structural error requiring reversal of the sentence. 2. Whether a Hurst violation may automatically be deemed “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” based solely on the fact that the jury, in an advisory capacity, unanimously recommended a death sentence. 1