This Article discusses the constitutionality of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.202(e)'s preclusion sanction in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence. Part II of this Article presents the background of Rule 3.202 and justification for the Rule. This part demonstrates that the State needs to conduct its own examination of a capital defendant if it is effectively to rebut the defense's mental health mitigation testimony. Part III discusses in detail Rule 3.202 and how the Rule's preclusion sanction ensures the State's examination of the accused in a capital case. Part IV discusses alternative sanctions less severe than preclusion and demonstrates that those alternative sanctions would be ineffective in ensuring the State's examination of the defendant. Part V discusses the constitutionality of Rule 3.202(e)'s preclusion sanction and argues that under existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Rule's constitutionality should be sustained to ensure the reliability of penalty-phase mental health testimony.
Back to the Law Review home page