Has anyone dealt with the claim that Ring v. Arizona transforms future dangerousness into an element that must be pled in the indictment?

We're getting ready to file a brief on this topic; we were curious to see if anyone else had come up with an argument that we had missed.

How about that argument that it's ridiculous?

Yeah, and include a cite to this user forum. Some claims are just too bad to explain. (It's good to see the threads getting back to real, meaty discussions rather than all that legislative stuff, eh Shannon?)

John Bradley
District Attorney
Williamson County, Texas

Surely the fact that you are alleging the murder as a capital offense is sufficient to provide notice that the State will seek to prove future dangerousness.

John, since you are unwilling to cite or accept Texas Jurisprudence, you surprise me by suggesting any court would be interested in what appears here.

Kind of gives you some idea what I think of Tex Jur, doesn't it?

John Bradley
District Attorney
Williamson County, Texas

I'm just about certain that our defendant will not win. First because he didn't preserve his complaint and second because the indictment clause of the 5th Amendment doesn't apply to the states.
But aside from that, the complaint is not ridiculous at all. Deciphering the implications of Ring is a growth industry. E.g., United States v. Johnson, 239 F.Supp. 2d 924, 941 (N.D. Iowa 2003) ("for purposes of the question of what the Indictment Clause requires, the dispositive question is one not of form, but of effect, and what the Indictment Clause requires is not that the statute define facts giving rise to increased maximum punishment as elements, but that such facts be noticed in the indictment).
I assumed that most offices were dealing with this complaint as we've seen at least 3 variations of it.
The argument that the defendant always has notice that F/D must be found in a death penalty case is attractive. OTOH, pleading F/D would give the defendant early notice that the death penalty was being sought. Also, the fact that F/D is always at issue in a death penalty case feels more like a harmless error argument than a reason why it doesn't have to be pled.