McKinney v. Arizona
McKinney v. Arizona, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a Supreme Court of the United States decision concerning how an appellate court handles sentencing after an Edding's error is identified – an error in which a person deciding a sentence in a capital punishment does not consider all mitigating evidence. It ruled that the state appellate court, rather than a jury, should reweigh the mitigating and aggravating factors in a habeas corpus review. BackgroundJames Erin McKinney (born June 4, 1967),[1] along with his half-brother Charles Michael Hedlund (born November 22, 1964),[1] committed two counts of burglary which resulted in two deaths.[2] After being prosecuted by the State of Arizona, McKinney was found guilty of two counts of First Degree Murder. At sentencing, a psychologist testified that he had diagnosed McKinney with post-traumatic stress disorder, with the sentencing judge stating that McKinney's childhood was “beyond the comprehension of most people.” [3] Arizona state law prevented the judge from considering this as it had no direct relevance to the crime and McKinney was thus sentenced to death.[4] On appeal in 2018, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the death sentence.[5] It was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court over disagreements on whether a judge or jury should resentence the defendant.[4][6] As of April 2021, both McKinney and Hedlund are among 20 Arizona death row inmates who have exhausted all their appeals.[7] DecisionThe Court ruled 5–4 that the state appellate court may reweigh the aggravating and mitigating factors.[4] References
|
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia