g. Whether Jury Participation Is Required in Arizona's Scheme.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

i. Sixth Amendment.

(1) U.S. Supreme Court.

(a) In Proffitt v. Florida, the Supreme Court sustained a capital sentencing scheme involving judge sentencing. 96 S. Ct. 2960.

(b) In Spaziano v. Florida, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment does not require that sentencing be performed by a jury in a capital case. 104 S. Ct. at 3161.

(c) In Walton v. Arizona, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that Arizona’s scheme requires jury sentencing because the aggravating factors are elements of the offense. 110 S. Ct. at 3054-55.

(2) Arizona Cases.

(a) There is no constitutional requirement that a jury make the decisions whether to impose the death penalty. Correll, 148 Ariz. at 483-84, Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. at 72; Spears, 184 Ariz. at 291.

(b) Arizona’s scheme is not unconstitutional for failing to involve the jury in the capital sentencing decisions. Harding, 137 Ariz. at 292; Gillies, 142 Ariz. at 568; Vickers, 159 Ariz. at 543.

(c) But the Court in Vickers acknowledged that the Supreme Court in Proffitt said that jury sentencing in capital cases can perform important societal functions. 159 Ariz. at 543.

(3)...