California. To further this point, Scalia brought up article forty-six section E of Kansas’ own state laws to show that mitigating circumstances have already been properly explained. When he started to respond to the Carr brothers’ first appeal that jurors should have the standards for mitigating circumstances defined, he referenced Buchanan v. Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the case. To defend the 8-1 decision, Justice Scalia began his statement by addressing Sidney Gleason’s challenge to whether the U.S. Secondly, the issue of whether the severance of joint sentencing cases is guaranteed by the Constitution was decided with this case. First, the case determined if the court is required to blatantly state to a jury that mitigating circumstances do not need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This case was heard in order to answer two questions pertaining to the eighth constitutional amendment. Also, the court’s refusal to sever their cases during sentencing caused them to receive harsher sentences. In their appeal, the brothers stated the court not instructing the jury that mitigating circumstances, or circumstances which are considered for leniency during the sentencing of a convicted person, do not need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt resulted in them being punished more severely. The brothers appealed the decision to the Kansas Supreme Court claiming that their eighth amendment right, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment, had been violated in two ways. For the five counts of murder alone, the state sought the death penalty plus life in prison for both men. The defense produced relatives of the Carr brothers and mental health advisers to show that the Carr brothers were not responsible for their actions based off their difficult childhood and previous suicidal episodes. The prosecution brought forth nearly eight hundred pieces of evidence to the trial, which included the Carr brothers’ DNA from the victims’ bodies, and testimonies from two survivors. Jonathan and Reginald Carr were originally tried following a seven day crime spree during which the brothers committed robbery, assault, rape, and five counts of murder. Supreme Court then reversed the lower court’s decision stating that there had been no constitutional violation in this case. The state’s attorney general appealed this decision to the nation’s Supreme Court on writs of certiorari. Their sentences were then overturned by the state’s supreme court on July 25, 2014. This decision was appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court. Jonathan and Reginald Carr were initially convicted by a court of their peers and sentenced to death in a Kansas trial court in 2002.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |