WADE WILSON: 9–3 AND 10–2 — HOW TWO SPLIT JURY VOTES LED TO TWO DEATH SENTENCES

Two murders. Two separate jury votes. And neither vote was unanimous.

When Wade Wilson was sentenced to death in Florida, one detail immediately stood out:

The jury did not vote 12–0.

Instead, jurors recommended death by a 9–3 vote for Kristine Melton and 10–2 for Diane Ruiz.

So how could two death sentences be imposed when several jurors did not vote for execution?

The answer lies in a major change to Florida’s death-penalty law.

And that change became central to Wilson’s case.

THE TWO VOTES THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING

On June 12, 2024, a jury found Wilson guilty of first-degree murder in the deaths of Kristine Melton and Diane Ruiz, two women killed in Cape Coral in October 2019.

The same jury later considered whether Wilson should receive life imprisonment or death.

After roughly 90 minutes of deliberation, the jurors returned two separate recommendations.

For Melton’s murder:

9 jurors voted for death.
3 voted against it.

For Ruiz’s murder:

10 jurors voted for death.
2 voted against it.

Those numbers were enough under the law in effect at the time.

But understanding why requires looking beyond the numbers.

FLORIDA HAD CHANGED ITS DEATH-PENALTY RULES

Florida’s death-sentencing system had undergone significant changes over the years.

Under the law applicable to Wilson’s sentencing, a jury no longer had to be unanimous when recommending death.

Florida Statute §921.142 provided that if at least eight jurors determined that a defendant should receive death, the jury’s recommendation would be death.

That meant a 9–3 vote qualified.

So did a 10–2 vote.

The statute also required something important before a death sentence could be imposed: the jury had to unanimously find at least one aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, the system separated two questions:

Did the jury unanimously find an aggravating factor?

And:

Did at least eight jurors recommend death?

Those are not the same vote.

That distinction is crucial to understanding Wilson’s sentencing.

WHY 9–3 WAS ENOUGH

Imagine the jury room after the penalty phase.

Twelve jurors are considering the punishment.

Three do not support a death recommendation.

Under Florida’s 2024 law, that did not automatically prevent a death recommendation.

As long as at least eight jurors voted for death — and the required aggravating finding was unanimous — the recommendation could be a death sentence.

Wilson’s 9–3 vote therefore crossed the statutory threshold.

The 10–2 vote crossed it as well.

The law specifically stated that when at least eight jurors recommended death, the recommendation to the court must be death.

WHAT AGGRAVATING FACTORS DID THE JURY FIND?

According to Court TV’s trial coverage, the jury found several aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.

For both murders, jurors found that Wilson had a prior felony conviction and was on probation at the time, that the murders involved two contemporaneous murder convictions, and that the offenses were heinous, atrocious and cruel.

For Ruiz’s murder, the jury also found that the killing was cold, calculated and premeditated.

These findings mattered because Florida law does not allow a death sentence simply because a sufficient number of jurors vote for it.

At least one aggravating factor had to be unanimously established beyond a reasonable doubt.

THEN THE JUDGE HAD TO MAKE HIS OWN DECISION

The jury’s recommendation was not the final step.

Judge Nicholas Thompson conducted the sentencing proceedings and reviewed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

On August 27, 2024, he sentenced Wilson to death for both murders.

The judge said the aggravating factors greatly outweighed the mitigating circumstances and found no basis to override the jury’s recommendations.

The result was two death sentences.

One for Melton.

One for Ruiz.

And behind those sentences were two different jury votes.

WHY THE NUMBERS STILL MATTER

At first glance, 9–3 and 10–2 might look like minor details.

They are not.

They demonstrate exactly how Florida’s revised death-penalty framework operated.

A unanimous jury was no longer required to recommend death.

Instead, the threshold was eight jurors.

That placed Wilson’s sentencing votes comfortably above the statutory minimum in both cases.

But the difference between the two votes is also notable.

The recommendation for Melton was closer:

9–3.

The recommendation for Ruiz was:

10–2.

That means three jurors opposed a death recommendation in one case, while two opposed it in the other.

Those jurors’ disagreement did not prevent the death recommendations because the statutory threshold had been met.

THE LAW ITSELF LATER BECAME PART OF THE APPEAL

The question did not end with Wilson’s sentencing.

His attorneys later challenged the legality of the death sentences rather than the underlying murder convictions.

Court TV reported in February 2026 that Wilson’s lawyers intended to take the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The legal challenge focuses in part on Florida’s use of nonunanimous jury recommendations for capital punishment.

That makes the 9–3 and 10–2 votes more than an interesting footnote.

They are directly connected to the legal question surrounding his death sentences.

FLORIDA’S SUPREME COURT ALSO ADDRESSED THE ISSUE

In December 2025, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the state’s 2023 law allowing death sentences based on nonunanimous jury recommendations, with a minimum threshold of 8–4.

The ruling rejected constitutional challenges brought by other death-row prisoners.

The Associated Press described Florida’s threshold as the lowest such requirement in the country at that time.

That ruling is significant context for understanding why Wilson’s attorneys continue to challenge the death sentences.

The legal argument is not simply about whether nine or ten jurors voted for death.

It concerns the constitutional and statutory framework that allowed those nonunanimous recommendations to become death sentences.

TWO WOMEN. TWO MURDERS. TWO VOTES.

The underlying case remains the most important part of the story.

According to the State Attorney’s Office, Wilson was convicted of killing Kristine Melton and Diane Ruiz in Cape Coral in October 2019.

Prosecutors said Melton was attacked in her home and that Wilson later encountered Ruiz while driving Melton’s vehicle.

Wilson was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder as well as several other offenses.

The penalty phase came afterward.

And that’s where the unusual numbers appeared.

9–3.

10–2.

Two separate votes.

Both above Florida’s eight-juror threshold.

Both followed by death sentences from the judge.

THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS

The most important legal question now is not simply:

“How did Wade Wilson get two death sentences from split jury votes?”

Florida law provides the basic answer.

The more complicated question is:

Will those death sentences survive the legal challenges surrounding the state’s nonunanimous sentencing system?

Wilson’s convictions and his death sentences are separate legal issues.

His attorneys have challenged the death penalty rather than the murder convictions.

And as the case moves through the appeals process, the unusual jury numbers remain at the center of the story.

For Melton:

9–3.

For Ruiz:

10–2.

Neither vote was unanimous.

Yet under the Florida law in effect at the time, both were sufficient to produce death recommendations.

And that single change in Florida’s law transformed what might otherwise have been a decisive question about jury unanimity into a much larger constitutional battle.

The numbers are simple.

The law behind them is not.