577 U.S. 108 (2016)
Less than one month after Sidney Gleason was paroled from a sentence for attempted voluntary manslaughter, he joined a conspiracy to rob an elderly man at knife-point.1 Gleason and a companion cut the elderly man during the robbery to obtain between ten and thirty-five dollars along with a box of cigarettes.2 Fearing that female co-conspirators would report the crime, Gleason and his cousin Damien Thompson killed co-conspirator Mikiala Martinez and her boyfriend.3 Gleason shot the boyfriend, after which Thompson strangled Martinez for five minutes and then shot her in the chest while Gleason stood by and supplied the gun for the final shot.4
The State charged Gleason with capital murder for killing Martinez and her boyfriend along with first-degree premeditated murder, aggravating kidnaping, attempted first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and criminal possession of a firearm.5 A jury convicted him on all counts except attempted first-degree murder.6 The jury sentenced him to death after finding four aggravating circumstances proved beyond a reasonable doubt.7
In December 2000 brothers Reginald and Jonathan Carr began a crime spree in Wichita.8 It included the carjacking of Andrew Schreiber at gunpoint to withdraw cash from ATMs.9 The spree also involved the shooting of cellist Linda Ann Walenta, who died a month later from her injuries.10 On December 14 the brothers invaded a triplex at 12727 Birchwood where they forced five victims—Jason, Brad, Aaron, Holly, and Heather—into a bedroom at gunpoint and golf club.11 They ordered them to strip naked and subjected the women to forced oral sex and digital penetration while the men were ordered to have sex with both women under threat of being shot.12 The brothers took victims one by one to ATMs to withdraw cash, raped Holly and Heather multiple times including on a dining-room floor covered with Christmas decorations, and at 2 a.m. drove the victims to a snow-covered field where they shot Jason, Brad, Aaron, and Heather execution-style.13 Holly survived a head wound deflected by a hair clip, ran naked through snow and over barbed wire for help, and reached a house to call 911.14 The brothers returned to the Birchwood house, ransacked it for valuables, and beat Holly’s dog Nikki to death with a golf club.15
The State charged each brother with more than fifty counts including multiple capital murders, rapes, kidnappings, and robberies.16 Separate juries convicted both on nearly all counts.17 In a joint sentencing proceeding the jury found four aggravating circumstances proved beyond a reasonable doubt and sentenced each brother to death on four murder counts.18 The Kansas Supreme Court vacated the death sentences in Gleason’s case and in both Carr brothers’ cases.19 The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.20
Whether the Eighth Amendment requires capital-sentencing courts to instruct a jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?21
The Eighth Amendment does not require capital-sentencing courts to instruct a jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Ambiguity in instructions creates constitutional error only if there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the instruction to prevent consideration of relevant evidence. The ultimate decision on mercy is not amenable to a standard of proof.22
No. The Kansas Supreme Court vacated Sidney Gleason's death sentence and the Carr brothers' death sentences.23 It concluded that the instructions failed to inform the jury that mitigating circumstances need only be proved to the satisfaction of the individual juror.24 The Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment imposes no such requirement.25 The instructions stated that the State must prove aggravating circumstances and that they outweigh mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.26
Mitigating circumstances need only be found to exist.27 No reasonable juror would have speculated that mitigating circumstances required proof beyond a reasonable doubt.28
The Eighth Amendment does not require capital-sentencing courts to give the instruction.29
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Sotomayor dissented from the grant of certiorari in these cases.30 She argued that the Court should not have reviewed the Kansas Supreme Court decisions because no federal constitutional right had been violated.31 Kansas had instead overprotected defendants under its own interpretation of state and federal law.32
She explained that granting certiorari in such circumstances risks discouraging necessary state experimentation with procedural protections for criminal defendants.33 The majority opinion further risks turning the Federal Constitution into a ceiling rather than a floor for individual liberties by questioning the wisdom of state procedural rules.34
Whether the Constitution required severance of the Carrs’ joint sentencing proceedings?35
The Constitution does not require severance of joint capital-sentencing proceedings when the defendants' criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events.36 The Eighth Amendment is inapposite to claims that evidence was improperly admitted.37 The Due Process Clause is violated only if evidence so infected the proceeding with unfairness as to render the death penalty a denial of due process.38
No. The Kansas Supreme Court vacated the Carr brothers' death sentences.39 It did so on the ground that the joint proceeding violated their Eighth Amendment right to individualized sentencing by allowing one brother's mitigating evidence and family background to prejudice the other.40 The Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not govern such evidentiary claims.41 The trial court instructed the jury to give separate consideration to each defendant and to decide each sentence on the evidence applicable to him alone.42 The joint proceeding permitted the jury to hear Holly's two-day testimony describing the brothers' execution-style shootings of Jason, Brad, Aaron, and Heather and their rapes of Holly and Heather in a single chain of events.43
Any risk of prejudice from antagonistic mitigation theories was cured by the limiting instructions.44
The Constitution did not require severance of the Carrs’ joint sentencing proceedings.45
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Sotomayor dissented from the grant of certiorari in these cases. She argued that the Court should not have reviewed the Kansas Supreme Court decisions because no federal constitutional right had been violated. Kansas had instead overprotected defendants under its own interpretation of state and federal law.
She explained that granting certiorari in such circumstances risks discouraging necessary state experimentation with procedural protections for criminal defendants. The majority opinion further risks turning the Federal Constitution into a ceiling rather than a floor for individual liberties by questioning the wisdom of state procedural rules.