Pre-Oral Argument Briefing Information

Case Summary

In 1993, James Erin McKinney was con­vict­ed of two mur­ders com­mit­ted dur­ing the course of sep­a­rate bur­glar­ies. Sentenced under judge-only penal­ty pro­ce­dures that were lat­er declared uncon­sti­tu­tion­al, McKinney’s case for life includ­ed the pre­sen­ta­tion of mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence of chron­ic, severe child­hood abuse and neglect that left McKinney suf­fer­ing from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The sen­tenc­ing judge found McKinney’s child­hood to be so hor­rif­ic that it was ​“beyond the com­pre­hen­sion of most peo­ple.” However, Arizona Supreme Court case deci­sions barred courts from con­sid­er­ing mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence that was not causal­ly con­nect­ed to the crime — a link­age the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2004 ​“has no foun­da­tion in the deci­sions of this Court” — and the tri­al judge did not con­sid­er that evi­dence when it sen­tenced McKinney to die. 

In 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit grant­ed habeas cor­pus relief because of Arizona’s uncon­sti­tu­tion­al use of this ​“causal nexus” restric­tion. On remand, at the request of the State, the Arizona Supreme Court chose not to send the case back to the tri­al court for a new sen­tenc­ing hear­ing. Instead, the Arizona Supreme Court con­duct­ed an ​“inde­pen­dent review” and affirmed McKinney’s death sen­tence. McKinney peti­tioned the United States Supreme Court for review argu­ing that he was enti­tled to a new sen­tenc­ing tri­al con­duct­ed in com­pli­ance with cur­rent constitutional standards.

Original Proceedings

At the time of McKinney’s tri­al, Arizona law pro­vid­ed for a jury tri­al on guilt or inno­cence and a sep­a­rate penal­ty phase in front of a judge. In his penal­ty-phase hear­ing, McKinney pre­sent­ed mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence of a ter­ri­fy­ing child­hood replete with insta­bil­i­ty, abuse, and neglect. The evi­dence from his ear­ly child­hood showed that his moth­er was repeat­ed­ly forced to flee from his alco­holic father. McKinney and his sib­lings lived in ​“squalor” in a house lit­tered with dirty dia­pers, shar­ing a room with live­stock and going to school in ​“dirty clothes that reeked of urine from being on the bed­room floor with the ani­mals.” McKinney ​“suf­fered reg­u­lar and exten­sive phys­i­cal, ver­bal, and emo­tion­al abuse.” His step­moth­er reg­u­lar­ly beat him and his sib­lings, leav­ing marks and bruis­es. Often, they were locked out of the house for hours with­out food and water. According to tes­ti­mo­ny from a psy­chol­o­gist, McKinney was diag­nosed with PTSD ​“result­ing from this horrific childhood.”

The tri­al judge found that McKinney’s child­hood was ​“beyond the com­pre­hen­sion of most peo­ple,” but refused to con­sid­er any of that evi­dence as a result of Arizona Supreme Court caselaw requir­ing mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence to have a direct causal con­nec­tion to the crime. The tri­al judge did not believe there was a causal con­nec­tion and ulti­mate­ly sen­tenced McKinney to death. On direct appeal in 1996, the Arizona Supreme Court con­duct­ed an ​“inde­pen­dent review” of McKinney’s death sen­tence. The court dis­missed McKinney’s PTSD con­clud­ing that it was incon­sis­tent with McKinney’s behav­ior and lacked a causal con­nec­tion to the crime.

Subsequent Developments

In June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Arizona’s judi­cial sen­tenc­ing pro­ce­dures uncon­sti­tu­tion­al, rul­ing in Ring v. Arizona that cap­i­tal defen­dants had a right to a jury deter­mi­na­tion of all facts upon which a death sen­tence could be imposed. However, the Court lat­er ruled in Schriro v. Summerlin that it would enforce Ring only in cas­es that had not yet com­plet­ed direct review at the time Ring was decided.

On fed­er­al habeas cor­pus review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed McKinney’s death sen­tence, hold­ing that Arizona’s require­ment that mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence be ​“causal­ly con­nect­ed” to the crime vio­lat­ed the U.S. Supreme Court’s long estab­lished 1982 deci­sion in Eddings v. Oklahoma. The appeals court rul­ing also affect­ed every oth­er Arizona death-penal­ty case in the 15-year time peri­od in which the state courts uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly lim­it­ed mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence. Arizona peti­tioned the U.S. Supreme Court for cer­tio­rari review of this rul­ing, and the Court denied the petition.

The Ninth Circuit returned the case to the Arizona courts, but rather than giv­ing McKinney a new sen­tenc­ing hear­ing, Pima County pros­e­cu­tors asked the Arizona Supreme Court to con­duct its own inde­pen­dent review of his sen­tence. McKinney argued that resen­tenc­ing by the court would vio­late his right under Ring to have a jury decide the aggra­vat­ing and mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence in his case. The Arizona Supreme Court sided with the pros­e­cu­tors and inde­pen­dent­ly reweighed the aggra­vat­ing and mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence. Affording lit­tle weight to McKinney’s PTSD, the court affirmed McKinney’s death sentence.

Before the United States Supreme Court

McKinney’s Supreme Court peti­tion chal­lenged the Arizona Supreme Court’s rul­ing, argu­ing that by reopen­ing his direct appeal, the Arizona Supreme Court was required by Ring v. Arizona to pro­vide con­sti­tu­tion­al­ly man­dat­ed jury sen­tenc­ing. McKinney also argued that cor­rect­ing an Eddings error about con­sid­er­a­tion of mit­i­gat­ing evi­dence requires a resen­tenc­ing, not just state supreme court review. McKinney not­ed a cir­cuit split on both of the issues that he urged the Supreme Court to resolve. Certiorari was grant­ed on both issues.

Resources on McKinney v. Arizona

Court Opinions

Briefing on the Petition for Certiorari

Merits Briefing in the U.S. Supreme Court

Amicus Briefs

In Support of Granting Certiorari to Petitioner 

In Support of Petitioner (Merits Stage)

In Support of Respondent (Merits Stage)

News coverage