Capital Punishment

A few years ago, the elected State Attorney in Orlando (Aramis Ayala) held a press conference where she announced her office would not seek the death penalty "in any case". She felt that there were too many documented cases in the past where juries got the decision wrong, sending innocent people to death row. Her announcement quickly drew criticism from the local law enforcement community and eventually got the attention of the Florida Governor at the time -- Rick Scott.The governor then reassigned all the pending capital 1st degree murder cases in Orlando to another jurisdiction to be prosecuted by a different prosecutor. The governor also had all Orlando's pending 1st degree murder cases re-reviewed to see if any of those cases should have been death cases. Finally, the governor reduced her office's budget since they would no longer be prosecuting these very complex cases anymore. Many questioned whether or not State Attorney Ayala's decision not to seek death in these cases as well as the governor's decision to reassign the cases and reduce her office's the budget were constitutional.

Ms. Ayala then filed a law suit challenging the governor's actions. The Florida Supreme Court heard arguments and ruled that her decision not to review her cases individually (as all elected Florida State Attorneys are required to do per the state constitution) to see if capital punishment is appropriate is in-fact unconstitutional. Ms. Ayala reversed her decision based on the Supreme Court's ruling.

What do you think about her initial decision not to review cases? Would it have been constitutional for her office to review cases and simply deny to seek death in all the cases on her instruction? Is there any difference in this alternative? What about the Florida high court's ruling? Did they get it right?

Note the question is NOT asking what you personally feel about capital punishment....but how the situation above was resolved.