McKinney v. Arizona
589 U.S. 139
SCOTUS2020Background
- In 1992 James McKinney was convicted of two first-degree murders; the trial judge (not a jury) found at least one aggravating circumstance for each murder and sentenced him to death.
- On direct appeal the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the death sentences in 1996 under Arizona’s then-judge sentencing scheme.
- In 2015 the Ninth Circuit (en banc) held on habeas that Arizona courts committed an Eddings error by refusing to consider McKinney’s PTSD as mitigating evidence, and directed relief unless the State corrected the error.
- The State asked the Arizona Supreme Court to cure the error; the court conducted a Clemons-style appellate reweighing of aggravating and mitigating evidence (including PTSD) on collateral review and again affirmed both death sentences in 2018.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether an appellate Clemons reweighing is a permissible remedy for an Eddings error on collateral review and whether Ring/Hurst require jury resentencing; the Court affirmed the Arizona Supreme Court. Justice Ginsburg dissented, arguing the 2018 proceeding was direct review and Ring applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McKinney) | Defendant's Argument (Arizona) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state appellate court may cure an Eddings error by conducting a Clemons reweighing | Clemons reweighing cannot substitute for jury resentencing; Eddings error required a jury resentencing | Clemons permits an appellate court to reweigh aggravating and mitigating evidence to cure sentencing errors | The Court: Clemons reweighing is a permissible remedy for an Eddings error and may be applied on collateral review |
| Whether Ring/Hurst require a jury to weigh aggravating vs. mitigating factors (not just find aggravators) | Ring/Hurst mean a jury must make the ultimate weighing and sentencing decision | Ring/Hurst require jury findings of aggravators but do not mandate jury weighing or decision within the statutory range | The Court: Ring/Hurst require jury findings of aggravators but do not require jury weighing or overruling Clemons |
| Whether Ring/Hurst apply retroactively so McKinney is entitled to jury resentencing | The Arizona Supreme Court’s 2018 reweighing reopened direct review, so Ring/Hurst should apply | McKinney’s case was on collateral review; Ring/Hurst are not retroactive on collateral review | The Court: The case was collateral review; Ring/Hurst do not apply retroactively, so no jury resentencing required |
| Whether a state court may characterize and conduct a Clemons reweighing on collateral review | The state label cannot defeat the retroactivity question; a Clemons reweighing is a sentencing proceeding and must occur on direct review | State law permits independent appellate reweighing on collateral review; federal courts defer to state classification of proceedings | The Court: State appellate Clemons reweighing on collateral review is permissible; federal courts will not second-guess state-law characterization insofar as it is valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (sentencer may not refuse to consider relevant mitigating evidence)
- Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U.S. 738 (1990) (appellate courts may reweigh aggravating and mitigating evidence to uphold a death sentence)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) (jury must find any fact that makes defendant death-eligible—the aggravating factor)
- Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. _ (2016) (applied Ring: judge-alone findings of aggravators impermissible under Sixth Amendment)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing maximum punishment must be found by a jury)
- Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004) (Ring does not apply retroactively on collateral review)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless-error review standard in collateral proceedings)
- McKinney v. Ryan, 813 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (habeas decision finding Eddings error as to McKinney’s PTSD)