Whether Florida may limit a jury's penalty phase role under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments despite the Supreme Court's overruling of Spaziano v. Florida

In an attempt to avoid the clear implications of this Court’s decision in Erlinger v. United States—that even unanimous jury recommendations for the death penalty are void under the Sixth Amendment because they cannot substantively limit executive and judi cial power—the Florida Supreme Court relied on its own decision dependent on Spaziano v. Florida to deny Mr. Tanzi’s claim. However, in Hurst v. Florida this Court overruled Spaziano in relevant part, making it clear that a jury’s “mere recommendation is n ot enough” under the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, the questions presented are: 1. Whether Florida may limit a penalty phase jury’s role under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments based on Spaziano v. Florida, a case which this Court has explicitly overruled. 2. Whether Florida’s continued reliance on unanimous advisory recommendations as a substitute for jury fact -finding violates the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause under Apprendi and its progeny.