Court should give cases back to Ayala.
Gov. Rick Scott recently took yet another case away from Orange-Osceola State Attorney Aramis Ayala, bringing the total to 26. Scott stated that he reassigned Ayala’s homicide cases to State Attorney Brad King because he was personally bothered by Ayala’s decision to no longer pursue death sentences. He invoked a rarely used statute as his legal justification for the maneuver, but the governor’s decision is nothing more than partisan politics at its worst.
Putting aside for a minute the fact that the governor’s decision to reassign these cases violates the constitutionally protected principle of prosecutorial independence and discretion, the governor usurped the will of Orlando and Osceola voters by reassigning cases from their judicial circuit to a state attorney who in no way resembles the one they elected.
Aramis Ayala ran in 2016, trouncing the incumbent by a wide margin — becoming the first African-American state attorney to be elected in Florida. Her victory was fueled by Orlando voters — 28 percent of whom are African-American — who wanted to see numerous reforms implemented by the top prosecutor’s office — reforms that Ayala promised to make.
Yet, Scott chose to reassign some of Ayala’s homicide cases to Brad King, who has a reputation as a death-penalty zealot. As a faith leader who believes in the sanctity of human life, the protection of human life, and the preservation of order in society, I find the actions of Scott grossly ineffective and absent of moral justification. Giving these cases to a deathpenalty zealot suggests the grasping after simple or easy solutions to what is inherently profound evil. Statistic after statistic has proved that capital punishment does not provide such a solution.
One has to wonder why, out of 20 state attorneys in Florida, did Scott choose King? In his career, King has advocated against requiring juries to be unanimous in capital cases, and in 2011, he sought the death penalty for a young mother who was pregnant with her fourth child; in the decision, the judge gave little weight to evidence that the defendant experienced sexual abuse and could have been controlled by an abusive boyfriend.
King is the opposite of a reformer. He has fought against modest reforms to make the justice system more fair and reliable, including bills aimed at improving eyewitness identification and a measure that would have required corroboration of jailhouse informant testimony. Some might even call him the anti-Ayala.
Scott’s decision to reassign these cases to King demonstrates that this power grab was driven by politics and personal ideology. If Ayala had been anyone else, would Scott have made the same decision?
Scott abused his authority when he took Ayala’s cases away from her, but he compounded this abuse by ignoring the will of Orange and Osceola voters by giving her cases to a state attorney whose values do not align with the values of the people who elected her.
Public Policy Polling’s recent poll of Orange and Osceola voters reveals that 62 percent prefer life sentences over the death penalty, and a majority believes that the state attorney should consider factors such as the impact on the victim’s families, the cost, and public safety in deciding whether to seek a death sentence. If voters disagree with Ayala’s choices, they can select a different candidate in the next election.
The Florida Supreme Court should see Scott’s action for what it is: a partisan political power grab, and the justices should return all 26 cases back to Ayala. Ayala acted legally, and if the court believes she should handle these cases differently, it should give her clear guidance.
But the court should not allow a statewide politician to substitute his political views and judgment for the views of a locally elected official, just because he is personally bothered by her decision.
Scott’s decision to reassign these cases to King demonstrates that this power grab was driven by politics and personal ideology.