Supreme Court denies new sentencing hearing for Arizona murderer

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court denied a new sentencing hearing Tuesday for an Arizona prisoner convicted of two brutal murders nearly three decades ago.

Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the 5-4 opinion and was joined by the court's four other conservatives. In a familiar pattern, particularly in death penalty cases, the four liberal justices dissented.

The case involved James McKinney, who killed two people in separate incidents in 1991. His lawyers argued that he suffered from severe abuse as a child that was not considered when he was sentenced to die, and only reconsidered at the appellate court level. They also said he deserved to be sentenced by a jury, rather than a judge.

The Supreme Court ruled in an Arizona case in 2002 that juries must make the findings that help determine life or death sentences. While that ruling did not apply retroactively, a new trial court proceeding might have given McKinney that chance.

"According to McKinney, appellate courts may no longer reweigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances in determining whether to uphold a death sentence. McKinney is incorrect," Kavanaugh wrote.

Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the liberals, said a jury should have decided on McKinney's fate.

"I would therefore hold McKinney’s death sentences unconstitutional," she said.

A coalition of 15 states had urged the court not to grant the new sentencing hearing because it could affect other death-row inmates. They are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah.

McKinney and his half-brother, Charles Hedlund, were sentenced to death by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge for the murders of Chandler residents Christene Mertens, 41, and Jim McClain, 65, during a 1991 burglary spree.

Mertens was home alone when the two broke in, beat and stabbed her and then shot her in the back of the head. They took $120.

McClain was asleep at his house when they broke in and shot him in the back of the head. They took his watch, three handguns and his car, according to records.

The case raised two different issues: whether Arizona violated the Constitution for years by not considering all mitigating circumstances in capital cases, and whether any new sentencing hearing should involve a jury, as is now required.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned Hedlund's sentence after his attorneys argued that a history of childhood abuse, alcoholism, post-traumatic stress disorder, a low IQ and other factors mitigated against imposition of the death penalty.

In McKinney's case, the appeals court similarly ruled that his sentence violated high court precedents. But when the case was sent back to the Arizona Supreme Court, it decided in 2018 to uphold the death sentence.

During oral argument in December, Neal Katyal, the former acting U.S. solicitor general representing McKinney, told the justices that weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances at the trial court level, not an appeals court, represents "the heart of what capital punishment sentencing is all about."

But several conservative justices wondered if McKinney deserves such a reward for the state court's error in not considering mitigating circumstances it deemed unconnected to the crimes, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Associate Justice Samuel Alito said McKinney was seeking "a double windfall" – a new shot at avoiding the death penalty and a jury trial.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich had called it "another attempt by a convicted killer to delay accepting responsibility for his heinous crimes. We must remember the victims and their families. Justice delayed is justice denied."

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court refuses new sentencing hearing for Arizona murderer