who was the kansas v carr state attorney general

Should the Carrs have been tried separately in Kansas?

Oct 25, 2016 · Jonathan and Reginald Carr were initially convicted by a court of their peers and sentenced to death in a Kansas trial court in 2002. This decision was appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court. Their sentences were then overturned by the state’s supreme court on July 25, 2014. The state’s attorney general appealed this decision to the nation’s Supreme Court on …

What is the significance of Kansas v Carr?

Jan 21, 2022 · TOPEKA – (January 21, 2022) – Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt issued the following statement in connection with today’s rulings by the Kansas Supreme Court affirming the death sentences imposed on Jonathan D. Carr and Reginald D. Carr Jr. for capital murders committed in Sedgwick County in 2000: “The legal path to this day has been long and winding …

What was the Supreme Court case Reginald Dexter Carr v Kansas?

Supreme Court of Kansas. Opinion filed October 23, 1981. Ted L. Peters, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant. Cris Senseman, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, attorney general, Clark V. Owens, district attorney, and Beverly Dempsey, assistant district attorney, were on the brief for the appellee.

What was the case of Carr v Ku appellee?

Kim T. Parker, deputy district attorney, argued the cause, and Debra S. Peterson, special prosecutor, David Lowden, chief attorney, Lesley A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, Nola Tedesco Foulston, former district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the briefs for appellee.

What happened to the Wichita murder case?

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. 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. Additionally, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the Carrs should have been tried separately. The Kansas attorney general filed an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to review the Kansas Supreme Court's rulings.

Why did Justice Sotomayor write a 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.

What did Justice Scalia say about the 8th amendment?

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". 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". 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". Justice Scalia then ordered the case remanded back to the Kansas state court for reconsideration.