Wrongly Overturned Death Sentences
In an 8 to 1 opinion on January 20, United States Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of Kansas officials seeking to reinstate the death penalty for three men. Two were convicted for the "Wichita massacre" in 2000. They broke into a house in Wichita and forced three men and two women to have sex with each other, withdraw money from ATMs, and then all five were taken to a soccer field and shot in the head. One woman survived after the bullet was deflected by a hair clip. The two are brothers, Jonathan and Reginald Carr, were sentenced to death. A couple years later, Sidney Gleason was convicted of two counts of capital murder and sentenced to death. Gleason killed Mikiala Martinez and Darren Wornkey because Martinez was a potential witness in a previous robbery by Gleason and Wornkey was her boyfriend. However, all three inmate's death sentences were overturned in 2014 by the Kansas Supreme Court.
The state court said that the juries in both cases should have been told that the men's troubled childhoods and other components favoring against a death sentence did not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The lower court ruled that the pair should have had separate sentencing hearings and not a joint one. The Supreme Court ruled that both courts had flawed reasoning.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia said that there is no requirement to tell jurors in a death sentence case that they can consider a factor favoring the defendant even if it's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. . The juries were told to impose the death sentence if they found "unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt" that at least one of the aggravating factors had been satisfied and was "not outweighed by any mitigating factors found to exist." The Court reasoned that “the facts justifying death set forth in the Kansas statute either did or did not exist.” But mitigating factors, the Court reasoned, are “largely a judgment call, " (SCOTUS).
The Supreme Court also ruled that the brothers didn't need to have separate sentencing hearings. The brothers argued that it violated their Eighth Amendment right to an individual sentencing. The Court dismissed this because it was stressed to the jurors to consider the brothers separately. The opinion suggested that it was “beyond reason to think that the jury’s death verdicts were caused by the identification of Reginald as the ‘corrupter’ or of Jonathan as the ‘corrupted,’” (SCOTUS).
Gleason raised the issue that the Supreme Court didn't have any authority over this case, but Sotomayor assured that the Kansas Supreme Court was following the Constitution. So the Supreme Court had authority to rule on these cases because they deal with individual liberties.
Now these cases will be sent back to the Kansas Supreme Court to be reviewed once again to decide whether additional proceedings are necessary.
Comments from Allen:
The U.S. Supreme Court having ruled there was no violation of U.S. Constitutional rights in the sentencing of these two men, the Defendants will probably focus on their rights under the Kansas Constitution, which may not be identical to their U.S. rights. They may be able to raise the same arguments under the Kansas Constitution as were raised under the U.S. Constitution, as the language in state constitutions often tracks the language in the federal constitution word-for-word. In addition, the men may bring an action for post-conviction relief, urging the court to find there were defenses available to them that were not earlier raised by counsel. This argument is similar to a legal malpractice action. If the court finds one or more substantial bases for appeal or for their defense were available to prior counsel but not competently raised, the court might consider granting some relief, such as a new trial, re-sentencing or stay of execution.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/justices-say-kansas-court-wrongly-overturned-death-sentences/
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/opinion-analysis-few-sparks-eight-votes-for-the-state-in-kansas-capital-cases/#more-237526
The state court said that the juries in both cases should have been told that the men's troubled childhoods and other components favoring against a death sentence did not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The lower court ruled that the pair should have had separate sentencing hearings and not a joint one. The Supreme Court ruled that both courts had flawed reasoning.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia said that there is no requirement to tell jurors in a death sentence case that they can consider a factor favoring the defendant even if it's not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. . The juries were told to impose the death sentence if they found "unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt" that at least one of the aggravating factors had been satisfied and was "not outweighed by any mitigating factors found to exist." The Court reasoned that “the facts justifying death set forth in the Kansas statute either did or did not exist.” But mitigating factors, the Court reasoned, are “largely a judgment call, " (SCOTUS).
The Supreme Court also ruled that the brothers didn't need to have separate sentencing hearings. The brothers argued that it violated their Eighth Amendment right to an individual sentencing. The Court dismissed this because it was stressed to the jurors to consider the brothers separately. The opinion suggested that it was “beyond reason to think that the jury’s death verdicts were caused by the identification of Reginald as the ‘corrupter’ or of Jonathan as the ‘corrupted,’” (SCOTUS).
Gleason raised the issue that the Supreme Court didn't have any authority over this case, but Sotomayor assured that the Kansas Supreme Court was following the Constitution. So the Supreme Court had authority to rule on these cases because they deal with individual liberties.
Now these cases will be sent back to the Kansas Supreme Court to be reviewed once again to decide whether additional proceedings are necessary.
Comments from Allen:
The U.S. Supreme Court having ruled there was no violation of U.S. Constitutional rights in the sentencing of these two men, the Defendants will probably focus on their rights under the Kansas Constitution, which may not be identical to their U.S. rights. They may be able to raise the same arguments under the Kansas Constitution as were raised under the U.S. Constitution, as the language in state constitutions often tracks the language in the federal constitution word-for-word. In addition, the men may bring an action for post-conviction relief, urging the court to find there were defenses available to them that were not earlier raised by counsel. This argument is similar to a legal malpractice action. If the court finds one or more substantial bases for appeal or for their defense were available to prior counsel but not competently raised, the court might consider granting some relief, such as a new trial, re-sentencing or stay of execution.
***********************************************************************************************************************
Allen Browning is an attorney in Idaho Falls, Idaho who handles personal injury and criminal defense. He has over 30 years of experience and handled thousands of cases. Allen handles cases from all over Idaho. Call (208) 542-2700 to set up a free consultation if you are facing legal trouble or you have been involved in an accident.
Also, check out browninglaw.net for more information about Allen and Browning Law.
Allen Browning can help with all personal injury claims including motor vehicle accidents,truck accidents, auto accidents, serious and disabling accidents, and wrongful death claims.
Allen Browning is an Idaho Falls attorney who can also help with drunk driving (DUI), traffic violations, Felony, Misdemeanor, Domestic Violence, Drug Crimes, Theft, Juvenile Crimes, battery and assault charges, Violent Crimes, and Probation/Parole Violations. He is one of the most experienced and successful criminal defense attorneys in Idaho.
Allen is able to provide his services if the incident occurs in the following Idaho Areas: American Falls, Arco, Blackfoot, Boise, Burley, Driggs, Idaho Falls, Malad City, Pocatello, Rexburg, Rigby, Salmon, St. Anthony, Twin Falls, Bannock County, Bingham County, Bonneville County, Butte County, Cassia County, Clark County, Fremont County, Jefferson County, Lemhi County, Madison County, Oneida County, Power County, Teton County, and Twin Falls County.
Sources for more information:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/justices-say-kansas-court-wrongly-overturned-death-sentences/
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/opinion-analysis-few-sparks-eight-votes-for-the-state-in-kansas-capital-cases/#more-237526
Comments
Post a Comment