Facts of the Case
In December 2000, brothers Jonathan and Reginald Carr committed a series of crimes in Wichita, Kansas, known as “The Wichita Massacre,” which included assault, robbery, rape, and the murder of five people. The Carrs were prosecuted jointly. They moved to sever their cases and argued that being tried jointly would be prejudicial because they intended to mount antagonistic defenses and introduce evidence that would be admissible or non-prejudicial only in separate trials. The trial judge denied the motion, and the Carrs were later jointly convicted on numerous counts and sentenced to death. The jury instructions at the sentencing trial did not state that mitigating circumstances need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
On appeal, the Carrs argued that their Eighth Amendment rights to individualized sentencing were violated both by the trial judge’s refusal to sever their cases and the failure to affirmatively instruct the jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Kansas Supreme Court agreed and reversed the death sentences by holding that the trial judge failed to do the necessary analysis and carefully consider the severance issue. The court also held that the jurors may have been prevented from giving meaningful effect to mitigating evidence because they were not instructed that mitigating circumstances need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the consolidated case, Kansas v. Gleason, Gleason was convicted of capital murder for the killings of several people in connection with a robbery. He was also convicted of pre-meditated murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and criminal possession of a firearm. The jury sentenced Gleason to death for the capital murder charge and a consecutive sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for 50 years for the other charges. Gleason appealed his convictions, and the Kansas Supreme Court vacated his conviction of life imprisonment because it was multiplicitous with his death sentence and vacated his death sentence because the jury was not properly instructed on how to consider mitigating circumstances.
Questions
(1) Does the Eighth Amendment require that a capital-sentencing jury be affirmatively instructed that mitigating circumstances need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
(2) Does a trial court's decision not to sever the sentencing phase of a joint trial violate the defendants’ Eighth Amendment rights to an individualized sentencing determination?
Conclusions
-
The Eighth Amendment does not require that a jury be affirmatively instructed that mitigating circumstances do not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, nor does the Eighth Amendment require that the sentencing phase of a joint trial be severed. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the 8-1 majority. The Court held that death penalty case law does not require a court to give the jury express instructions on how to consider mitigating evidence, and no reasonable juror would have understood the instructions as requiring that defense counsel prove the existence of mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also held that the Eighth Amendment does not govern procedural issues, such as the claim that each defendant was prejudiced by evidence relating to the other during the joint sentencing phase at issue. Instead, such claims are governed by the Due Process Clause. Moreover, in this case, there is no evidence that the jury was impermissibly prejudiced by the presentation of evidence during a joint sentencing phase for both defendants.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent in which she argued that the Kansas state courts had not violated any federal constitutional right, and therefore there was no reason for the Supreme Court to intervene. Because this case turns on a question about a state sentencing scheme, it is unlikely to apply to other states. By granting certiorari in such a case and determining that no constitutional right was violated, as the majority did in this case, the Court creates a risk that such decisions will discourage states from adopting additional procedural protections via state law.
Capital Punishment Once Again Before the Supreme Court: Kansas v. Gleason and Kansas v. Carr - Podcast
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
Somewhat overlooked at the end of the United States Supreme Court’s October 2014 term was...
Supreme Court Preview: Criminal Law
The U.S. Supreme Court returns to begin its new term on the first Monday in...
Supreme Court Preview: What Is in Store for October Term 2015? - Audio/Video
Co-Sponsored by the Faculty Division and the Practice Groups
October 5th will mark the first day of the 2015 Supreme Court term. Thus far,...
