Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Jonathan Daniel Carr - Kansas Death Row

  1. #11
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    90198 - State v. Jonathan Carr video 1, video 2, video 3
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  2. #12
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    I fear that the Kansas Supreme Court is hellbent on never ever affirming a death sentence.

  3. #13
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Attorney General Will Appeal Death Penalty Decisions

    Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review three recent Kansas Supreme Court decisions that overturned death sentences.

    Schmidt believes that the punishments were within federal constitutional requirements.

    The State Supreme Court upheld the capital murder convictions of Sidney Gleason, Reginald Carr and Jonathan Carr, but vacated all three death sentences.

    By officially notifying State Supreme Court that he will officially appeal, further proceedings will be put on hold until they have been reviewed.

    The decision whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court will here the case could come before the end of the year, although only about 5% of cases submitted to the Supreme Court are even heard.

    http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/A...270484311.html
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  4. #14
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    Families of Carr brothers victims seek removal of two Kansas Supreme Court justices

    BY FRED MANN
    THE WICHITA EAGLE

    Friends and family members of the victims of Jonathan and Reginald Carr have formed an organization opposing the retention of two Kansas Supreme Court justices who were part of a majority decision that granted the brothers’ appeal of their 2002 murder convictions.

    Kansans for Justice wants to remove justices Lee Johnson and Eric Rosen from the court at the ballot box in November. Johnson and Rosen are two members of the court majority that granted the appeal. Supreme Court justices stand for retention every six years.

    The Carr were convicted of killing five people in Wichita in 2000. One of the people tortured and raped by the brothers survived and testified against them at their 2002 trial.

    In July, the state’s highest court overturned their death sentences and struck down three of each man’s four capital murder convictions

    “Our family was devastated by the murderous crime spree of the Carr brothers,” Mark Befort, brother of one of the victims, Jason Befort, said in a written statement. “We had to re-live the hideous acts when the Carr brothers were tried two years later.

    Now the Kansas Supreme Court has voted to either eliminate these verdicts or force all of the family members and surviving victims to have to once again re-live those crimes in court, or see these guilty verdicts erased. This is an outrage and we will be fighting from now through November 4 to get Kansans to understand the injustice the Kansas Supreme Court is creating.”

    Kansans for Justice has established a website, www.kansansforjustice.com.

    http://www.kansas.com/news/local/cri...le2651289.html
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

  5. #15
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Carr brother death penalty case appealed to Supreme Court

    Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt today formally appealed the Kansas Supreme Court’s decisions that vacated the death sentences of Reginald and Jonathan Carr. The Carr brothers were convicted of killing five people in Wichita in 2000.

    Schmidt is also appealing the vacated death sentence of Sidney Gleason. He was convicted of killing Miki Martinez and Darren Wornkey in 2004 in Barton County.

    On July 18, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the capital murder conviction of Sidney Gleason but vacated Gleason’s death sentence. One week later, on July 25, the Kansas Supreme Court upheld a single capital murder conviction each for Reginald and Jonathan Carr but similarly vacated both of their death sentences.

    Schmidt announced in August his intention to appeal the Kansas Supreme Court’s decisions, and today he formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the cases.

    A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court whether to hear the state’s appeal in any or all of these three cases is expected before the end of the Court’s current term in June, 2015.

    http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/C...279476632.html
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  6. #16
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Somewhat related

    Former DA criticizes Brownback ad depicting Carr brothers

    The district attorney who prosecuted Sedgwick County's notorious Carr brothers for murder on Wednesday condemned a new campaign advertisement from Gov. Sam Brownback that pivots on the case in a bid to weaken support for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Paul Davis.

    The spot from Brownback’s campaign released Tuesday questioned the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision overturning death penalty sentences for Reginald and Jonathan Carr, who were convicted in the 2000 slayings of five people in Wichita.

    The GOP governor said the commercial was designed to inform voters that Davis would appoint high court justices willing to impose on Kansans their personal views of capital punishment.

    Nola Foulston, former Sedgwick County district attorney, said in a statement that use of the Carr brothers’ murders as a political wedge by Brownback’s campaign was damaging to victims’ families and could be viewed as unprofessional conduct by an attorney.

    “This case has devastated our community for almost 14 years,” said Foulston, a Democrat who retired from the prosecutor’s office in 2013. “It is beyond disgraceful that Sam Brownback would exploit this tragedy and make the victims’ families relive that horrific crime every time they turn on their television just for the sake of getting re-elected."

    On Tuesday, Brownback said during a Wichita debate with Davis the issue of judicial selection should be elevated as a campaign issue. The pitch two weeks before the Nov. 4 election coincided with release of the ad, which argues Davis was aligned with the “left-wing court.”

    “The current Kansas Supreme Court is clearly outside the judicial mainstream and Paul Davis will make it worse,” Brownback campaign spokesman John Milburn said.

    Foulston prosecuted the Carrs in 2002, and both were convicted and sentenced to death after a crime spree that left five dead. Their appeals have been winding through the state’s court system for years.

    In July, the state Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling in a high-profile case involving the killing of four people who were robbed and forced to engage in sex acts and then shot to death in a snow-covered field. Murdered in the assault were Aaron Sander, Brad Heyka, Jason Befort and Heather Muller. One woman survived a gunshot wound to the head when a hair piece deflected a bullet. The Carrs also were convicted of killing a Wichita woman in a separate incident.

    The justices struck down three of four capital murder convictions against the incarcerated brothers, pointing to procedural flaws in sentencing by the trial judge. The district court judge should have allowed separate sentencing proceedings for the Carrs instead of holding a joint proceeding, the high court ruled. The justices upheld one capital murder conviction for each of them.

    When the court’s reversal was announced, Brownback blasted the legal determination and complained the ruling “unnecessarily reopens wounds of a tragic moment in Wichita's history.”

    On Wednesday, Foulston said she was “terribly disappointed with the decision” by the Supreme Court. She said there would “ultimately be justice for the victims and their families.”

    “However, it is not for Brownback to raise the ire of our state’s citizens,” she said. “His reckless comments only undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.”

    Brownback has campaigned for an amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would allow governors to appointment justices to the Supreme Court pending confirmation by the Kansas Senate.

    Davis has maintained opposition to Brownback’s version of the federal model, urging the state to retain the merit-based approach requiring governors to select a nominee from among three finalists recommended by an independent panel.

    http://cjonline.com/news/state/2014-...-carr-brothers
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  7. #17
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Surviving victim of Carr brothers speaks out against court ruling

    My name is Andy Schreiber. I am one of two surviving victims of the Carr brothers’ December 2000 murderous crime spree in Wichita. I’ve sat silently for more than 12 years, but I’m now breaking that silence to share my thoughts on the recent Kansas Supreme Court ruling vacating the death sentences for both brothers (July 26 Eagle). This decision left me no choice but to speak out.

    The death penalty is a legally acceptable penalty: It is not murder. It is a valid and legal form of punishment that was voted on and enacted by the Kansas Legislature. What the Supreme Court has done – not only in the Carr brothers’ case, but in all other capital murder cases since the death penalty was re-enacted in 1994 – is effectively eliminate the death penalty by judicial edict. A majority of the Supreme Court justices have allowed their personal political views of the death penalty to cloud their impartiality in these cases. The reason the U.S. Supreme Court has reinstated several of the death sentences vacated by the Kansas Supreme Court is because these decisions were legally flawed.

    Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect trial. I challenge anyone to find a perfect capital murder trial where no errors were made, especially a case as complicated as this one. However, in a case like this one where evidence of guilt is so overwhelming and where any error, when weighed against the totality of the evidence presented against each defendant, could not possibly have resulted in a different verdict had it not occurred, the case should be affirmed. That was basically then-Justice Nancy Moritz’s dissenting opinion in this 6-1 decision to vacate both death sentences.

    Any retrial or resentencing is an enormous waste of time and taxpayer money, not to mention the anguish it will cause the victims and our families, as we’re forced to relive each and every horrifying detail of the crimes all over again – twice – because of the separate penalty trials ordered by the state Supreme Court.

    In the 14 years since these vicious crimes were committed, those of us affected by these two animals have picked up the pieces and carried on with our lives. We’ve started families and careers, though all the while haunted by the possibility of having to do this all over again.

    Eric Rosen and Lee Johnson are two of the justices who voted to vacate the death sentences in this case. Appointed Supreme Court justices must face a retention vote every six years, and both Rosen and Johnson will be on the Nov. 4 ballot. I urge you to speak out, just as I have here, and vote “no” to remove Rosen and Johnson from the bench.

    http://www.kansas.com/opinion/opn-co...#storylink=cpy
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  8. #18
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    U.S. Supreme Court to review Carr brothers case

    The United States Supreme Court will take on the Carr brothers case in a decision that could have implications for all Kansas inmates sentenced to death.

    In an order Monday, the court granted review to the cases, known as Kansas v. Carr. Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt is asking the justices to weigh in on the Kansas Supreme Court’s ruling in the case this past summer.

    Jonathan and Reginald Carr shot four people in December 2000 in Wichita and were sentenced to death. They both shared a capital-sentencing trial, which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled should have been separate.

    Schmidt argued in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case that the state court’s ruling had effectively abolished joint death penalty proceedings. In addition, the court will weigh in on the instructions given to the jury during the sentencing portion.

    The case became an issue in the gubernatorial race between Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and Democratic Rep. Paul Davis when the Brownback campaign ran a TV ad that invoked the case and suggested Davis would choose judges like those on the court who threw out capital punishment convictions against the Carr brothers.

    The husband of Supreme Court Justice Carol Beier also held a fundraiser at their Topeka home in September to generate support for Davis. Beier and Davis did not attend. Brownback seized on the fundraiser and used it to attack Davis.

    A call to the Attorney General’s office was not answered early Monday.

    An order list from the U.S. Supreme Court shows that justices will hold one hour of oral arguments in the case.

    http://cjonline.com/news/2015-03-30/...-brothers-case
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  9. #19
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    U.S. Supreme Court to hear Carr brothers, Gleason appeals in October session

    The United States Supreme Court has allocated time periods for oral arguments in three cases in which the Kansas Supreme Court set aside the death penalty for men convicted of capital murder.

    The nation's highest court will consider Kansas' appeal of its own high court decision at an unspecified date during the next court session beginning in October, the Supreme Court announced Monday.

    The Kansas Supreme Court in 2014 upheld the capital murder convictions but vacated the death sentences of brothers Jonathan and Reginald Carr, both of Wichita, and Sidney Gleason, a former Topekan convicted in two Great Bend killings. The state appealed the decision to overturn the death sentences to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed this past March to hear all three appeals.

    Gleason was convicted of capital murder in the Feb. 21, 2004, killing of a woman, Mikiala “Miki” Martinez — a potential witness against him in a knifepoint robbery in Great Bend — as well as her boyfriend, Darren Wornkey.

    The Carrs were convicted in a killing spree in which five people were murdered in December 2000. Four of the victims were killed together after a night in which two women were raped by their assailants and forced to have sex with three other male victims. All five were shot execution style in a field, but one female victim miraculously survived a gunshot wound to the head and lived to testify against the Carrs, who also were convicted of killing another Wichita woman several days earlier.

    The Kansas Supreme Court cited the failure of the Barton County District Court judge to give a jury instruction regarding mitigating circumstances in vacating Gleason's death sentence. In removing the Carrs from Death Row, the Kansas court said the brothers should have been given separate hearings in the sentencing phase of their trial.

    The issue of jury instruction is common in all three cases to be argued before the U.S. high court.

    According to Supreme Court orders filed with all three, the high court must decide “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 found in vacating the death sentence.

    The U.S. Supreme Court allocated one hour of oral argument on the question, assigning 30 minutes to the state of Kansas, 20 minutes for Jonathan Carr and Sidney Gleason, and 10 minutes for Reginald Carr.

    A second question to be considered by the high court in the matter of the Carr brothers is whether the confrontation clause applies in the “selection” phase of the capital sentencing hearing, as the Kansas court maintained. In dividing one hour of oral argument on this question, justices assigned 20 minutes for the state of Kansas, 10 minutes for the Solicitor General, 20 minutes for Reginald Carr and 10 minutes for Jonathan Carr.

    The justices made no oral arguments allocation for a third question in the Carrs' case – whether the trial court's refusal to order separate sentencing hearings for the Carrs violated the Eighth Amendment right to “individualized sentencing” and was more than harmless error.

    http://cjonline.com/news/2015-06-29/...ctober-session

  10. #20
    Moderator MRBAM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Capital Region NY
    Posts
    865
    SCOTUS Oral argument scheduled for 10/7/15

    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?

    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

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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
  •