In light of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985), where a state has instituted an indefinite and formal moratorium on the death penalty, whether a jury can even constitutionally consider that punishment?

In June 2022, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania charged DeAngelo Zielgar (“Mr. Zieglar”) with capital murder. However, since 2015, there has been a formal and indefinite moratorium on executions in Pennsylvania. Moreover, on February 16, 2023, the Governor of Pennsylvania publicly announced: “I will not issue any execution warrants during my term as Governor. When an execution warrant comes to my desk, I will sign a reprieve each and every time.” In light of these circumstances, and based on this Honorable Court’s decision in Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985), the trial court entered an order declining to empanel a death-qualified jury. As the trial court explained, “the jury is not going to be death-qualified and go through all of that and then be asked to listen to all of the additional evidence and then listen to the arguments when the Governor has already said it’s not going to happen. It simply isn’t going to happen. It’s an unreasonable use of court process, in my view.” The Commonwealth appealed, and the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. The Court concluded that the trial court’s (and Mr. Zieglar’s) reliance on the rationale of Caldwell was “premature.” The question presented is: In light of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985), where a state has instituted an indefinite and formal moratorium on the death penalty, whether a jury can even constitutionally consider that punishment? i