U.S. Supreme Court weighs Carr and Gleason cases

WASHINGTON (MEDIA GENERAL) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard the gruesome quadruple murder case involving brothers Jonathan and Reginald Carr on Wednesday.

All nine justices will rule on the constitutionality of the brothers’ joint death sentence, which the Kansas Supreme Court overturned in 2014.

“Solemn” is how Amy James, girlfriend of murder victim Brad Heyka, described the day’s tone.

James said after a 15-year legal battle, she and other loved ones hope the justices will uphold the sentence, sparing families and surviving victims the turmoil of further trials.

The court seemed likely to rule against three Kansas men who challenged their death sentences in what one justice called “some of the most horrendous murders” he’s ever seen from the bench.

The justices were critical of the Kansas Supreme Court, which overturned the sentences of the men, including two brothers convicted in a murderous crime spree known as the “Wichita massacre.”

Reporters from NPR, Washington Post grill Kansas AG Derek Schmidt as he exits SCOTUS Carr hearing on death penalty. (Credit: Chance Seales).
Reporters from NPR, Washington Post grill Kansas AG Derek Schmidt as he exits SCOTUS Carr hearing on death penalty. (Credit: Chance Seales).
Sedgwick County DA Marc Bennett says he's hopeful that SCOTUS justices will uphold Carrs' death sentence, following "intense" hearing. (Credit: Chance Seales)
Sedgwick County DA Marc Bennett says he’s hopeful that SCOTUS justices will uphold Carrs’ death sentence, following “intense” hearing. (Credit: Chance Seales)


It was the first high court hearing on death penalty cases since a bitter clash over lethal injection procedures exposed deep divisions among the justices last term.

The debate this time was over the sentencing process for Jonathan and Reginald Carr and for Sidney Gleason, who was convicted in a separate case of killing a couple to stop them from implicating him in a robbery.

The Kansas Supreme Court overturned death sentences in both cases, saying the juries should have been told that evidence of the men’s troubled childhoods and other factors weighing against a death sentence did not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The state court also ruled that the Carr brothers should have had separate sentencing hearings instead of a joint one. It said Reginald Carr’s sentence may have been unfairly tainted because Jonathan Carr blamed Reginald for being a bad influence during their childhoods.

Sidney Gleason (KSN File Photo)
Sidney Gleason (KSN File Photo)

While the attorneys on both sides focused on the legal technicalities, several of the justices couldn’t help but dwell on the sordid facts of the Carr case.

Justice Samuel Alito said it involves “some of the most horrendous murders that I have ever seen in my 10 years here. And we see practically every death penalty case that comes up anywhere in the country.”

At one point, Justice Antonin Scalia recounted at length the brutal details. Authorities said the brothers broke into a Wichita, Kansas, home in December 2000, where they forced the three men and two women inside to have sex with each other while they watched, then repeatedly raped the women. The brothers then forced the victims to withdraw money from ATMs before taking them to a soccer field, forcing them to kneel, and shooting each one in the head.

Four of the victims, Brad Heyka, Heather Muller, Aaron Sander, Jason Befort died, but one woman survived a gunshot wound to the head because a plastic clip in her hair deflected the bullet. She ran naked through the snow for help and later testified against the brothers at trial.

Carr Victims“You truly think that this jury, but for the fact that your client was the corruptor, would not have imposed the death penalty,” Scalia asked Frederick Liu, attorney for Reginald Carr.

Liu argued that having both brothers in the same hearing could have led the jury to blame Reginald Carr for Jonathan’s conduct.

Kansas Solicitor General Stephen McAllister argued that requiring the state to conduct separate sentencing hearings would lead to inconsistent results and unfairly allow defendants to preview the state’s evidence.

Justice Stephen Breyer warned that requiring separate sentencing hearings in such cases could “throw a monkey wrench” into hundreds of other cases where gang members and other co-defendants are tried and sentenced at joint proceedings.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested some of the jurors may have been confused about how to consider mitigating factors that might favor leniency. The jury instructions said aggravating factors had to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but made no specification for mitigating factors.

But Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt argued that the instructions also included “an open-ended invitation” to consider any facts that might spare a death sentence, including pleas for mercy.

Even if some of there was some “unfortunate wording,” Justice Elena Kagan wondered, “why doesn’t all this other stuff indicate that no juror was likely to be confused.”

KSN News In-Depth

List of cases for argument on 10/7/2015 at the U.S. Supreme Court

Comments are closed.