III. Statement of Facts: Earl Enmund was sitting outside in a getaway car, while his accomplices Jeanette and Sampson Armstrong went up to the house and rang a doorbell of two farmers in central Florida. When someone answered the door, Sampson pulled out a gun and held him at gunpoint and Jeanette took the money. The other person in the house came out and shot Jeanette and wounded her, so Sampson shot both of them and killed them. Sampson and Jeanette got into the getaway car that Enmund was driving. When they were caught The Armstrongs and Enmund were convicted of one count of robbery and two counts of first degree murder, and sentenced to death. The conviction was affirmed by the state’s highest court. The United States Supreme Court reversed and remanded his death sentence, holding that capital punishment was inappropriate for defendant.

IV. Is it against the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to be sentenced to capital punishment if you were only a getaway driver in a robbery that turned into murder?

V. Holding and Action: Yes. It was affirmed.

VI: Rationale: The argument was whether if it’s okay to give someone the death penalty if they were just a getaway driver in a robbery that turned into a murder crime goes against the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court held that it did …show more content…
This was enough evidence to the state of Florida to make the defendant a helper by aiding and assisting in the crime and therefore he could be a principal in first-degree murder upon whom the death penalty could be imposed. The court rejected the defendant's argument and said that the evidence shows that the defendant didn’t try to take a life in this situation and the death penalty was protected by the Eighth