Term: 2015
Docket: 14-449
Kansas v. Carr
- Pro
14-449 KANSAS V. CARR, JONATHAN DECISION BELOW: 329 P.3d 1195 GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTIONS 1 AND 3 PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONS. CONSOLIDATED WITH 14-450 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. 6/29/2015 A total of one hour is allocated for oral argument in No. 14-452, and on Question 1 in Nos. 14-449 and 14-450, to be divided as follows: 30 minutes for petitioner, 20 minutes for respondents Jonathan D. Carr and Sidney J. Gleason, and 10 minutes for respondent Reginald D. Carr. A total of one hour is allocated for oral argument on Question 2 in Nos. 14-449 and 14- 450, to be divided as follows: 20 minutes for petitioner, 10 minutes for the Solicitor General, 20 minutes for respondent Reginald D. Carr, and 10 minutes for respondent Jonathan D. Carr. CERT. GRANTED 3/30/2015 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether the Eighth Amendment requires that a capital-sentencing jury be affirmatively instructed that mitigating circumstances "need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt," as the Kansas Supreme Court held here, or instead whether the Eighth Amendment is satisfied by instructions that, in context, make clear that each juror must individually assess and weigh any mitigating circumstances? 2. Whether the Confrontation Clause, as interpreted in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), applies to the "selection" phase of capital sentencing proceedings, as the Kansas Supreme Court held here, i.e., after a defendant has been convicted of capital murder and proof of eligibility for the death penalty has been presented in the guilt phase subject to full confrontation, or does not apply to such purely sentencing evidence, as at least three Circuits have held? 3. Whether the trial court's decision not to sever the sentencing phase of the co-defendant brothers' trial here-a decision that comports with the traditional approach preferring joinder in circumstances like this-violated an Eighth Amendment right to an "individualized sentencing" determination and was not harmless in any event? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 90,198
In the case of Kansas v. Carr in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a joint sentencing proceeding for two brothers convicted of brutal crimes did not violate their Eighth Amendment rights to avoid cruel and unusual punishment. The court also held that the Constitution does not require states to instruct juries on mitigating circumstances during death penalty cases without using the term "beyond a reasonable doubt." This ruling overturned an earlier decision by the Kansas Supreme Court which had set aside three death sentences imposed on Sidney Gleason and Reginald and Jonathan Carr due to concerns about jury instructions and combined sentencing proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision was unanimous, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing for all nine justices.
In the dissenting opinion for Kansas v. Carr, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision was a departure from precedent and an intrusion on states' rights to determine their own criminal procedures. She contended that it is not within the Supreme Court's purview to dictate how states should instruct juries in capital cases, especially when there is no clear constitutional violation at stake. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “harmless error” review and believed that this case did not meet its standard because it could have influenced jurors’ decisions about whether or not to impose death sentences. In her view, requiring separate sentencing proceedings would ensure fairness by preventing one defendant’s aggravating circumstances from prejudicing co-defendants.
