Kansas v. Carr

Last updated
Kansas v. Carr
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 7, 2015
Decided January 20, 2016
Full case nameKansas, Petitioner v. Jonathan D. Carr; Kansas, Petitioner v. Reginald Dexter Carr, Jr.; Kansas, Petitioner v. Sidney J. Gleason
Docket nos. 14-449
14-450
14-452
Citations577 U.S. ___ ( more )
136 S. Ct. 633; 193 L. Ed. 2d 535
Case history
PriorOn Writs of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas
Holding
The Eighth Amendment does not require courts to instruct a jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Kansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Kagan
DissentSotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VIII

Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified several procedures for sentencing defendants in capital cases. Specifically, the Court held that judges are not required to affirmatively instruct juries about the burden of proof for establishing mitigating evidence, and that joint trials of capital defendants "are often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events". [1] This case included the last majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia before his death in February 2016. [2]

Contents

Background

This case involved two separate murder cases that were consolidated on appeal. [3] Sidney Gleason was initially sentenced to death for the alleged murder of a co-conspirator and that co-conspirator's boyfriend to conceal evidence of a robbery. [4] In a separate case, Reginald and Jonathan Carr were jointly sentenced to death for the rape, kidnapping, and murder of five individuals after a crime spree in Wichita, Kansas, that ultimately became known as the Wichita Massacre. [5] In both cases, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the death sentences; the court ruled that the juries should have been affirmatively instructed that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. [6] Additionally, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the Carrs should have been tried separately. [7] The Kansas attorney general filed an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to review the Kansas Supreme Court's rulings. [8]

Opinion of the Court

Antonin Scalia, who authored his final majority opinion Antonin Scalia Official SCOTUS Portrait crop.jpg
Antonin Scalia, who authored his final majority opinion

Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not require courts in capital cases to instruct juries about the burden of proof for establishing mitigating evidence; therefore, the trial courts in this case were under no obligation to inform jurors that "mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt". [9] Because the jury instructions in this case told jurors to "consider any mitigating factor", Justice Scalia concluded that "[j]urors would not have misunderstood these instructions to prevent their consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence". [10] Justice Scalia also concluded that in light of the evidence presented at trial, the joint trial of defendants "did not render the sentencing proceedings fundamentally unfair". [11] Justice Scalia then ordered the case remanded back to the Kansas state court for reconsideration. [12]

Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in which she argued that the Supreme Court should not have reviewed these cases because Kansas did not violate any party's constitutional rights. [13] She also expressed concern that the majority's opinion would discourage states from developing techniques for ensuring fair procedures during capital trials. [14] She wrote, "I worry that cases like these prevent States from serving as necessary laboratories for experimenting with how best to guarantee defendants a fair trial". [15] Although Justice Sotomayor admitted that the Supreme Court may want to grant review in "rare cases" in which "a state prosecutor alleges that a State’s highest court has overprotected a criminal defendant", the Court should not have granted certiorari in this case. [16]

Commentary and analysis

Because the majority's analysis focused primarily on procedural issues rather than the "heart of the death penalty", commentators observed that the case "lacked the fireworks that we have come to expect" of death penalty cases. [17] Mark Joseph Stern wrote the 8–1 vote was unexpected in light of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer's previous disapproval of capital punishment, and he suggested that "the court’s judgment calls into question optimistic speculation that the end of the death penalty is nigh". [18] Mark Walsh noted that this case was the last majority opinion written by Justice Scalia before his death in February 2016, though his last dissenting opinion was in FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association . [2]

Affirmation of sentence by Kansas Supreme Court

The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty for the brothers on January 21, 2022. [19]

See also

Related Research Articles

Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Kansas death penalty statute was consistent with the United States Constitution. The statute in question provided for a death sentence when the aggravating factors and mitigating factors were of equal weight.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2009 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.

Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned the ability of a defendant to tell the jury that, absent a penalty of death, a penalty of life imprisonment would not permit early release of a prisoner on parole. While the question had been decided in the case of Simmons v. South Carolina, this case dealt with the extent of the ruling.

Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case which concerned whether instructions given to a Texas jury were constitutionally adequate to emphasize the mitigating factors in sentencing of defendants who are intellectually disabled The Texas courts had determined the sentencing instructions were consistent with prior Supreme Court jurisprudence, but the Court in a divided decision reversed, finding the sentencing instructions insufficient. This was the second time Penry's case made it to the Supreme Court.

Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a bright-line IQ threshold requirement for determining whether someone has an intellectual disability is unconstitutional in deciding whether they are eligible for the death penalty.

Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam to kill prisoners convicted of capital crimes do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court found that condemned prisoners can only challenge their method of execution after providing a known and available alternative method.

Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether there is a constitutional right to live in the United States with one's spouse and whether procedural due process requires consular officials to give notice of reasons for denying a visa application. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion, the controlling opinion in this case, he wrote that notice requirements “[do] not apply when, as in this case, a visa application is denied due to terrorism or national security concerns.” Because the consular officials satisfied notice requirements, there was no need for the Court to address the constitutional question about the right to live with one's spouse.

Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that its previous ruling in Miller v. Alabama (2012), that a mandatory life sentence without parole should not apply to persons convicted of murder committed as juveniles, should be applied retroactively. This decision potentially affects up to 2,300 cases nationwide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a death sentence of a Hispanic defendant despite the fact that all Blacks and Hispanics were rejected from the jury during the defendant's trial. The case involved a habeas corpus petition submitted by Hector Ayala, who was arrested and tried in the late 1980s for the alleged murder of three individuals during an attempted robbery of an automobile body shop in San Diego, California in April 1985. At trial, the prosecution used peremptory challenges to strike all Black and Hispanic jurors who were available for jury service. The trial court judge allowed the prosecution to explain the basis for the peremptory challenges outside the presence of Ayala's counsel, "so as not to disclose trial strategy". Ayala was ultimately sentenced to death, but he filed several appeals challenging the constitutionality of the trial court's decision to exclude his counsel from the hearings.

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.

Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ___ (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a police officer who shot a suspect during a police pursuit was entitled to qualified immunity. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that prior precedent did not establish "beyond debate" that the officer's actions were objectively unreasonable.

Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–1 ruling, applied the rule of Ring v. Arizona to the Florida capital sentencing scheme, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. In Florida, under a 2013 statute, the jury made recommendations but the judge decided the facts.

FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had the authority to regulate demand response transactions. Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in this case was the last opinion he wrote before his death in February 2016.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments. Ocasio argued that he should not be found guilty of conspiring to commit extortion because the only property that was exchanged in the scheme was transferred from one member of the conspiracy to another, and an individual cannot be found guilty of conspiring to extort a co-conspirator.

Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the death sentence of the defendant Duane Buck after the defendant's attorney introduced evidence that suggested the defendant would be more likely to commit violent acts in the future because he was black.

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.

McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to decide that the objective of his defense is to maintain innocence at all costs, even when counsel believes that admitting guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty.

Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices ruled that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution do not require that states adopt the insanity defense in criminal cases that are based on the defendant's ability to recognize right from wrong. It was argued on October 7, 2019 and decided on March 23, 2020.

Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court related to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court.

References

  1. ↑ Kansas v. Carr,No. 14-449 , 577 U.S. ___, slip op. at 11, 13, 16 (2016).
  2. 1 2 Walsh, Mark (Feb 22, 2016). "A "view" from the Courtroom: The Justices return to a black and gray bench". SCOTUSblog . SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on November 8, 2020. Retrieved March 27, 2022.
  3. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 1.
  4. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 1–2.
  5. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 1, 2–6.
  6. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 6–7.
  7. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 7–8.
  8. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 3.
  9. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 11, 13 (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added).
  10. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 13 (emphasis in original).
  11. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 17.
  12. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 18.
  13. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 1 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
  14. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 2–3, 7–9 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
  15. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 2–3 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
  16. ↑ Carr, slip op. at 9–10 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
  17. ↑ Amy Howe, Opinion analysis: Few sparks, eight votes for the state in Kansas capital cases, SCOTUSblog, January 20, 2016.
  18. ↑ Mark Joseph Stern, SCOTUS Relaxes Capital Sentencing Rules, Clears the Way for Three Executions, SLATE, January 20, 2016.
  19. ↑ High court ruling in Carr brothers case brings Kansas closer to seeing its first execution since 1965, Topeka Capital-Journal , Tim Hrenchir, January 21, 2022. Retrieved January 21, 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.