Florida A & M University Law Review



This comment will analyze how the Florida Supreme Court has disregarded the doctrine of Stare Decisis throughout 2020 and the consequences of the four significant changes to Florida’s death penalty law. Part II discusses how the doctrine of stare decisis is defined and its origins. Part III addresses the need for certainty and reliability of the law for its survival as an institution. Part IV discusses how the court’s new composition has led the court to overturn precedent in death penalty law. Part V delves into the four major changes that the Florida Supreme Court has made relating to the death penalty from January 2020 to October 2020 in chronological order. Part VI presents the recommendation that the Florida Supreme Court should not have made all of these drastic changes to the law because of the consequences on Florida as a state, on defendants on death row, on defendants that could face the death penalty, and on how citizens will now view the court. Part VII addresses other potential changes we can expect in Florida’s death penalty law and the possibility that the court’s composition could change in the future. Part VIII presents possible solutions to this dilemma by looking at this issue through different systems that may prevent the politicization of the court. Lastly, Part XI concludes with a summary of all discussed in this comment.