the argument next in case-- >> may it please the court, under florida law, timothy hearst will go to his death, despite the fact that a judge, not a jury made the factual finding that rendered him eligible for death. the sixthtes amendment alone. what authorizes imposition of the death penalty is a finding of fact by the court of an aggravating factor, a finding that the trial judge makes independently and "notwith standing the jury's recommendation as to sentence." the state contends that capital sentencing juries make implicit findings that satisfied the sixth amendment, which the trial judge simply ratifies. that is wrong. whatever the jury's recommendation might imply about the specified aggravating factors, the florida supreme court has repeatedly rejected that it is anything other than advisory. florida law and trust -- entrusts the factual findings to the judge alone, who may do so on the basis of evidence that the jury never heard, and activators that the jury was never presented with. >> is there ever a case in which the jury found activators -- aggravators and the judge rev