Following the American Psychologists Association’s Guidelines
The case in question, that of the Carr Brothers, involved two siblings Reginald and Jonathan, with a long history of criminal activities having killed and sexually abused five young men and women. A sixth woman, who survived a gunshot wound to her head, and walked a mile in the snow to seek help. She succumbed to her wound later, and before death gave her evidence against the brothers.
The Wichita Court sentenced them to death. According to the sixth amendment to the US Constitution, there must be -“ In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” In case of the Carr Brothers Case, they were given a death penalty. They thought it was unfair, and appealed for an investigation into the Sedgwick and Wyandotte residents. The results found were represented as showing that 74 percent of the Sedgwick County were thought the brothers to be either “definitely guilty” or “probably guilty.” (Lefler, Don,2014) The defence also wanted separate cases for the brothers, because each brother would pile his crimes on the other. However, the court overruled all these claims and reinstated their verdict as the final one.
In 2002, the defence for the Carr Brothers brought out a new angle to the crime. The defence claimed that the unhappy childhood of the brothers was responsible for them to having committed such a ghastly crime. (Hegeman,Roxana ,2014)The brothers were said to have suffered from having grown up in a dysfunctional family, and thus the defence requested the court to cancel the death verdict, and make it a life imprisonment one instead. The prosecution said that no excuse or reason for such heinous crimes would be accepted. The lawyers for each brother tried to put the blame on the other. The defence also argued that in the previous verdict the jurors had been blinded by the fact that they were not given separate trials. Under the Kansas Law, capital murder can be charged on grounds that the killing was
premeditated. The jurors, however, held their verdict that the brothers were guilty of robbery, murder, and sexual assault. The Sedgwick County District Attorney, however, passed the verdict that this wasn’t a hate crime, but a robbery. There was no evidence of a racial attack, even though the Carr Brothers were black and the victims white. The media burst out, saying that the County District Attorney was being unfair, since a short while back the murder of a young black person by a young white had been termed as “racial hate crime.”
Voir Dire can be defined as the procedures and technicalities connected in the appointment of the jurors, who will be fair and speak the truth. In case, the judge suspects that the juror’s state of mind isn’t impartial, the judge may reappoint the juror. In the Carr vs State case, the judge was convinced the same, and the number was gradually brought down to twelve.
The defence tried to accuse Judge Clark of three offences. They said that the judge didn’t allow the case to move out of the Sedgwick County, were people were prejudiced against the Carr Brothers, from before itself. They accused the judge of not allowing separate cases from the two brothers, and instead treating the case as one. The defence also said that Jonathan Carr was unfit to stand the trial, and the judge didn’t pay heed.
In answer to these accuses, the supreme court said that no trial had been moved from the Sedgwick County, and this case was no exception. The case was to go on for long, and thus filing two separate cases would add to the cost and time. The mental reports of both the Carr Brothers, as examined by practiced doctors, claimed them to be mentally competent. Thus, the question of letting Jonathan Carr off was not an option.
Works Cited:
- Lefler, Don. “ Kansas Supreme Court Hears Carr Brothers’ Death Penalty Appeals.” Retrieved from http://www.kansas.com/news/special-reports/carr-brothers/article1129860.html
- Hegeman,Roxana. “Defence blames Carr Brothers’ childhood for crimes.” Retrieved from http://cjonline.com/stories/110502/bre_carr.shtml
