Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: James Erin McKinney - Arizona Death Row

  1. #21
    Moderator Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Newport, United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,454
    Divided on Death Penalty, Justices to Hear Capital Case

    The U.S. Supreme Court took up a capital case June 10 that could help death row prisoners upend their sentences.

    After a series of heated fights this term on the ultimate punishment, the justices will hear arguments next term about whether courts need to apply current law when reviewing old death sentences.

    “We are glad that the Supreme Court agreed to hear this important case and we look forward to argument in the Fall,” said former acting U.S. solicitor general Neal Katyal, of Hogan Lovells, who represents the defendant James Erin McKinney on appeal.

    The justices’ decision to grant review “is a positive sign that the court is not going to throw up its hands and ignore unconstitutional death sentences,” said G. Ben Cohen of the Promise of Justice Initiative in New Orleans, who filed an amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief supporting the defense.

    The case also “presents an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of juries in weighing the evidence about whether an inmate should live or die,” said John Mills of Phillips Black, who also filed a defense amicus brief.

    McKinney was convicted of multiple murders in 1993, both burglaries turned deadly. He beat and stabbed Christine Mertens several times before holding her face down on the floor and shooting her in back of the head. Two weeks later, he shot a sleeping 65-year-old Jim McClain in back of the head.

    The trial court sentenced him to death after weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, deciding the mitigating ones weren’t enough to call for leniency.

    More than 20 years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that Arizona state courts were wrongly weighing factors and that in McKinney’s case, they were wrong not to consider his suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of his abusive childhood.

    But on further review last year, the Arizona top court ruled against him, applying the law as it was in the 1990's rather than today.

    After the Ninth Circuit’s reversal, McKinney said he’s entitled to a new sentencing before a jury as required by the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Ring v. Arizona. The state top court disagreed, saying it was the right venue for review instead of a jury because his case was “final” before Ring.

    McKinney says that courts around the country are split on how to approach cases like his and that the issue in his appeal could affect at least 20 capital cases in Arizona alone.

    Attempting to talk the justices out of taking the case, the state cast doubt on courts being split. It urged the justices of the need for finality in criminal proceedings, particularly in this case involving the killing of “two blameless and essentially incapacitated victims.”

    Katie Conner, spokesperson for the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, said the state believes the Arizona Supreme Court already addressed the appeals court’s concerns, and that there was no need for the justices to get involved.

    “That being said, we feel confident in our arguments and believe we will ultimately prevail at the federal level as well,” Conner said.

    But the state “cannot pretend that the last two decades of law never happened,” said David J. Euchner of the Pima County, Ariz., public defender’s office, which also supported McKinney’s effort to get the case in front of the justices.

    He said McKinney “was denied a fair sentencing proceeding in 1993, as were so many other people who received death sentences because our state courts applied the wrong law.”

    He accused the state of wanting to “whitewash the process for imposing the death penalty in the 1990's that we now know was flawed.”

    The case is McKinney v. Arizona, U.S., 18-1109, review granted 6/10/19.
    "How do you get drunk on death row?" - Werner Herzog

    "When we get fruit, we get the juice and water. I ferment for a week! It tastes like chalk, it's nasty" - Blaine Keith Milam #999558 Texas Death Row

  2. #22
    Moderator Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Newport, United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,454
    Court to hear resentencing bid in Arizona death penalty case

    PHOENIX — The U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal Wednesday December 11 by an Arizona death row inmate who is seeking a new sentencing trial, arguing the horrific physical abuse that he suffered as a child wasn't fully considered when he was first sentenced.

    The appeal of James Erin McKinney could affect as many as 15 of Arizona's 104 death row inmates. Attorneys say the Arizona courts used an unconstitutional test in examining the mitigating factors considered during the sentencing trials of the inmates.

    McKinney wants the Supreme Court to throw out his sentences in the 1991 killings of Christine Mertens and Jim McClain so that a jury can decide whether he should face death or life in prison. He was first sentenced to death by a judge.

    The Supreme Court has ruled both that juries, not judges, must impose death sentences, and that mitigating factors, including childhood deprivations, must be factored into sentencing decisions.

    McKinney's attorneys say the Arizona Supreme Court erred last year in upholding his sentences after a federal appellate decision concluded that the state court used an unconstitutional test in examining the mitigating factors considered during his sentencing.

    Prosecutors said McKinney shouldn't get a sentencing retrial, arguing his case was considered officially closed years before the 2002 Supreme Court decision that required death penalty decisions to be made by jurors, not judges.

    Attorneys say the decision in McKinney's case could affect other Arizona death row inmates who could challenge the test used in evaluating the mitigating factors considered during sentencing. But it's unclear whether the ruling would affect death penalty cases from other states.

    Jordon Steiker, a law professor at the University of Texas who filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting McKinney's position, said he doesn't think the McKinney decision will have much of an effect on cases outside of Arizona.

    But a brief filed by attorneys general in 16 other states said the changes that McKinney is seeking would represent a "sea change" that would make it harder to bring closure to death penalty cases.

    In any case, Paul Bender, a professor of constitutional law at Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, said there's a strong case for letting juries decide sentencing retrials in cases like McKinney's, but he doesn't believe a majority of the court will agree with those arguments.

    "I don't think there are five votes on the court to reverse a death penalty based on a technical issue," Bender said.

    McKinney and his half brother, Charles Michael Hedlund, were both convicted of murder in the deaths of Mertens and McClain during a series of burglaries in metro Phoenix. Hedlund also is on death row and has asked the Supreme Court to review his death sentence on similar grounds.

    Prosecutors say both men beat and stabbed Mertens during a struggle at her home and that McKinney pinned Mertens to the floor and shot her in the back of the head.

    About two weeks later, prosecutors say McKinney and Hedlund ransacked McClain's home during a burglary and that one of them fatally shot McClain as he slept.

    The Arizona Supreme Court, which had already upheld McKinney's sentences in 1996, was asked by prosecutors to review his punishments again after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the state court applied an unconstitutional rule that required mitigating evidence, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, to be directed tied to the crime in order to be relevant at sentencing.

    McKinney's lawyers say their client suffered from post-traumatic stress because of a horrific childhood in which he was physically abused, frequently deprived of food and water and locked him outside the home with little clothing.

    Prosecutors urged the court to uphold the 2018 state court review of McKinney's sentences, saying his evidence of post-traumatic stress was considered by Arizona courts and that the review of his sentences didn't reopen his case.

    In upholding the sentences last year, the state's highest court said it placed minimal weight on McKinney's mitigation evidence, given the aggravating circumstances of the killings. The court said the crimes were planned and that McKinney had stated before Mertens' shooting death that he would kill anyone he encountered during the burglary.

    McKinney's attorneys maintain that although his conviction was considered final in 1996, his case was reopened last year when the state Supreme Court reviewed his sentences.

    McKinney's attorneys also alleged the state court violated an earlier U.S. Supreme Court ruling that concluded that the sentencer in a death penalty case can't refuse to consider relevant mitigating evidence. They say the remedy for violating the rule was resentencing.

    "You shouldn't be able to say that if it doesn't have a connection to a crime, then it's not really mitigation," said Sharmila Roy, one of McKinney's attorneys.

    Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, who wasn't involved in the McKinney prosecution but is chairwoman of a prosecutors' group that argued against his legal positions in a friend-of-the-court brief, said a ruling in McKinney's favor would disrupt the finality that victims' families have gotten through earlier verdicts and would "truly open up what we see an endless system of review and appeals in these cases."

    The Arizona attorney general's office, which is defending McKinney's death sentences before the U.S. Supreme Court, declined to comment.

    http://www.startribune.com/court-to-...ase/565974231/
    "How do you get drunk on death row?" - Werner Herzog

    "When we get fruit, we get the juice and water. I ferment for a week! It tastes like chalk, it's nasty" - Blaine Keith Milam #999558 Texas Death Row

  3. #23
    Moderator Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Newport, United Kingdom
    Posts
    2,454
    Justices appear split in Arizona death sentence case

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over whether an Arizona death row inmate should get a new sentencing trial nearly 30 years after being convicted of killing two people in home burglaries.

    The outcome of inmate James Erin McKinney's appeal could affect as many as 15 of Arizona's 104 death row inmates.

    McKinney wants the Supreme Court to throw out his sentences in the 1991 killings of Christine Mertens and Jim McClain so that a jury can decide whether he should face death or life in prison. He was first sentenced to death by a judge.

    He also argues that courts have not fully considered the horrific physical abuse he suffered as a child.

    The Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that juries, not judges, must impose death sentences. The court has also ruled that mitigating factors, including childhood deprivations, must be factored into sentencing decisions.

    The justices have to decide whether McKinney should be able to take advantage of the ruling that requires juries to impose death sentences, even though the court ruled it does not typically apply to older cases. They also have to determine whether the issue of McKinney's past must be handled in a trial court or could be dealt with by the Arizona Supreme Court, which upheld his sentence last year after it said it gave some weight to his childhood deprivations.

    Several conservatives suggested they were skeptical of McKinney's claims. Justice Brett Kavanaugh voiced concern about "requiring a new sentencing 28 years after the murders and the families have been through this for three decades."

    Justice Samuel Alito told Neal Katyal, McKinney's lawyer, that his client was seeking a "double windfall."

    The liberal justices appeared more receptive to Katyal's arguments. Justice Elena Kagan said it would be strange not to apply current law to a "new proceeding to correct a constitutional error in the year 2019."

    McKinney's half brother, Charles Michael Hedlund, also was convicted of murder in the deaths of Mertens and McClain during a series of burglaries in the Phoenix area. Hedlund also has asked the Supreme Court to review his death sentence on similar grounds.

    http://www.startribune.com/justices-...ase/566089431/
    "How do you get drunk on death row?" - Werner Herzog

    "When we get fruit, we get the juice and water. I ferment for a week! It tastes like chalk, it's nasty" - Blaine Keith Milam #999558 Texas Death Row

  4. #24
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mastro Titta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Prato, Italy
    Posts
    1,275
    In today's opinion, the United States Supreme Court has REINSTATED McKinney's death sentences. Majority opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, dissenting opinion by Justice Ginsburg.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1109_5i36.pdf
    Last edited by Mastro Titta; 02-25-2020 at 11:33 AM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •