U.S. Supreme Court to hear Carr brothers case Wednesday

The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed likely to rule against three Kansas men who challenged their death sentences in what one justice called “some of the most horrendous murders” he’s ever seen from the bench. It said the juries were not told that mitigating factors such as troubled childhoods did not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and it said brothers Jonathan and Reginald Carr should have had separate sentencing hearings.

The justices were critical of the Kansas Supreme Court, which overturned the sentences of the men, including two brothers convicted in a murderous crime spree known as the “Wichita massacre”.

Due to legal complexities in the cases, the Carrs and Gleason could win new sentencing hearings based on state law even if the high court rules against them.

The justices also planned to hear the case of Sidney Gleason, sentenced to die for the 2004 murder of a Great Bend woman and her boyfriend after she witnessed a robbery.

The Kansas Supreme Court has overturned every death sentence that has come before it on appeal since the state brought back capital punishment in 1994.

“You truly think that this jury, but for the fact that your client was the corruptor, would not have imposed the death penalty”, Scalia asked Frederick Liu, attorney for Reginald Carr.

At one point, Justice Antonin Scalia recounted at length the brutal details.

“The two outcomes would be the case would be reversed and remanded”, Foulston said.

“They’re not going anywhere”, Foulston said. The other issue was whether the judge erred in refusing to sever the sentencing proceedings, so that each brother would receive his own hearing.

James has been the spokeswoman of a victims’ group, Kansans for Justice, which formed weeks before the November 2014 election to persuade voters to oust Kansas Supreme Court Justices Lee Johnson and Eric Rosen. One of those kidnapped, a woman named in court papers as Holly G., managed to survive because a bullet deflected off a hair-clip she was wearing.

Both brothers presented mitigating evidence that their terrifying childhood had been rife with physical, sexual and drug abuse, with Jonathan presenting additional evidence that his older brother had been a corrupting influence. The Kansas cases argued Wednesday focused on two distinct procedural issues that affect sentencing. He narrowly won re-election a year ago and broadcast television ads late in his campaign that criticized “liberal judges” and referenced the Carrs’ cases.

In a tag-team performance, Kansas Attorney General Derek L. Schmidt argued that the trial judge’s mitigation instructions were sufficiently clear, while Kansas Solicitor General Stephen R. McAllister defended the use of a single sentencing hearing.