The facts of the McKinney v. Arizona case
James McKinney and Charles Hedlund looted five homes in Phoenix, Arizona, in early 1991. Christine Mertens was beaten and stabbed by McKinney and Hedlund during one of the robberies. In the process of the robbery, McKinney killed Mertens by shooting her. Jim McClain was shot and murdered by McKinney and Hedlund with a sawed-off weapon in another heist. McKinney was found guilty of two charges of first-degree murder in 1992 by a jury (Death Penalty Information Center). McKinney was sentenced to death after a jury found him guilty of two murders with aggravating circumstances (McKinney v. Arizona). Arizona’s Supreme Court affirmed McKinney’s death penalties on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
The decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in the McKinney v. Arizona case
The State of Arizona requested a second hearing of McKinney’s death sentence from the “Arizona Supreme” Court in 2018. Justice Hurwitz stated, “Independent review is the paradigm of direct review – we determine, de novo, whether the trial court, on the facts before it, properly sentenced the defendant to death” (McKinney v. Arizona). Because of a constitutional mistake that occurred in the previous appeal, this case required a fresh direct hearing of the death penalty, which was granted by the Supreme Court (McKinney v. Arizona). Concerning the case of Ring v. Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that perpetrators are eligible for a jury decision of any fact that warrants a rise in a maximum sentence where there are mitigating factors.
The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the state appellate jury’s ruling, holding that a court may perform a re-evaluation of the contributing instead of a jury in cases involving the death sentence. In doing so, the Court failed to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling in Eddings v. Oklahoma, which established that a death sentence must also take significant mitigating factors into account as a legal matter. The Arizona Supreme Court examined a jury rehearing in McKinney’s case, and McKinney’s case was upheld on appeal. The violence and trauma he suffered as a youngster triggered his PTSD (McKinney v. Arizona). Despite this and the evidence and extenuating factors, the Supreme Court concurred with the StatState confirming death penalties twice.
How the Court’s decision will affect the lives of We the People
Due process for crime victims is guaranteed in both the United States and the Arizona Federal Constitution. Re-sentencing offenders would prolong their case, expose them to appeal and post-conviction punishment, and increase the prospect that additional guilty individuals will seek similar grief sentencing. There is a risk that the numerous victims of these previously handled crimes might be re-burdened (American Bar Association). A perpetrator is retraumatized each time they appear in Court for a new phase of litigation, resulting in severe damage to the healing and rehabilitation required for crime victims and their families.
Personal opinion as to the Court’s decision
I concur with the Court’s ruling on the grounds it used to deliver a verdict to McKinney. I feel that an insanity defense was employed in this case. McKinney has previously stated that he struggled with PTSD as a result of his background. He was not in the right state of mind when he killed Christine Mertens and Jim McClain as a result of this. In criminal justice, defenses include innocence, civil rights violations, alibi, lunacy, self-defense, protection of others, protection of property, involuntary drunkenness, voluntary intoxication, error of law/fact, duress or coercion, withdrawal, certainty, and the law governing. This informs the citizens that there are certain conditions that might be considered during a ruling while others cannot. The major issue is what led to one committing a certain crime or what factors led to that.
Works Cited
American Bar Association. “McKinney v. Arizona.” Americanbar.org, 2019, Web.
Death Penalty Information Center. “McKinney v. Arizona.” Death Penalty Information Center, 2021, Web.
McKinney v. Arizona, 140 S. Ct. 702, 589 U.S., 206 L. Ed. 2d 69, 2020.