Kansas v. Carr (14-449)

argument 14-449

Kansas v. Carr

Supreme Court of the United States 59 min 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue of the Kansas v. Carr case regarding severance of the penalty phase?

John G. Roberts 0:00

Okay, on the severance question, uh Mr. McAllister.

Mr. McAllister 0:03

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The joint sentencing proceeding in these cases did not violate the Eighth Amendment because each defendant received the individualized sentencing determination to which he was entitled. Each presented all of the mitigating evidence he chose to produce. The jury instructions explicitly told the jury to consider each defendant individually. In fact, there were several separate instructions, some that related only to one defendant or only to another defendant. Each the jury for each defendant then had to complete a specific verdict form. Uh and this jury had already proven its ability to distinguish between these two defendants when it convicted one of some counts in the original guilt phase.

Mr. McAllister 0:50

of which it acquitted the other. Uh the the only way the Kansas Supreme Court gets to an eighth amendment error in this case. Well really there are two points. One, it relied upon possible, in one instance not even, uh violations or errors of state law to find a prejudice that that rose to an eighth amendment level, uh and two, it disregarded altogether with really no explanation the longstanding foundational principle that juries are presumed to follow their instructions. Uh the the two state law errors, arguably, that the the Kansas Supreme Court found one was the admission of evidence of the sister Who made the comment about Reginald may have told me he shot those people. Well, that's not even an error of state law.

Mr. McAllister 1:39

They said basically that's prejudicial. It might not have come in if they'd been tried separately, but in fact that evidence would be relevant to aggravator number one that the defendant killed multiple people. That would have been admissible evidence. And that that just can't be an eighth amendment violation.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1:55

But the Kansas the the Kansas court found independent of the severance question. uh that there was constitutional error in the admission of hearsay.

Mr. McAllister 2:07

That's the third question presented in the surpetition on which the court has not taken any action yet, Your Honor.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2:16

Thank you for telling us. about severance, but we had this other round that leads to the same bottom line.

Mr. McAllister 2:25

Well and we are certainly hopeful that the court will take another look at that second question depending on its resolution of the two questions that are in front of it today. But if it goes back in that posture, yes, they would have another ground.

Anthony M. Kennedy 2:42

that could not have been introduced against the other had there been servants.

Mr. McAllister 2:48

The only arguable evidence really, Justice Kennedy, is the what what Reginald refers to as the corrupting influence. But even that arguably would be relevant to the mercy consideration to show his character, uh the nature of this person that's being sentenced, and that was the notion that his mother testified that sometimes of course Jonathan looked up to his big brother uh and maybe sometimes Reginald was a bad influence on him. But that's that was really the extent of that evidence. And and that might have come in as a rebuttal to a mercy argument. The the Kansas Supreme Court did not really definitively say that was even state law error, but even if you assumed it was Could you tell me the

Elena Kagan 3:30

constitutional standard you're asking us to apply? I mean I I this argument goes to harmless error. serious position to take, but even if there was error No foul. A foul put. No penalty. Okay. But what standard are we applying? We're not applying the rule f or are we or should we apply the rule fourteenth standard?

Mr. McAllister 3:54

No, not not for eighth amendment purposes, Your Honor. Uh Kansas would propose and I suspect the United States can propose something as well, but it's a very high standard as an eighth amendment matter, and we would say we would be content to accept something like a serious risk. that a defendant will not be able to receive individualized sentencing. It's sort of moulding the traditional notions of joinder with the Eighth Amendment consideration, because that seems to be the only Eighth Amendment consideration here is the individual.