Oregon v. Guzek — The U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will consider whether capital defendants have a constitutional right to present evidence that would cast doubt on their conviction during the penalty phase of their death penalty trials, a question that has divided state and lower federal courts for many years. The defendant, Randy Lee Guzek, sought to introduce alibi evidence after he was convicted during the sentencing phase of his trial. This evidence tended to show that he had not been present at the victims’ home at the time of the murders. On direct appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in excluding the alibi evidence from Guzek’s penalty-phase proceeding. In their ruling, the judges reasoned that the alibi evidence was “highly relevant” in determining his sentence, and therefore was required to be considered by the jury under the Eighth Amendment and Oregon statutory law.
In some cases, juries decide to sentence a defendant to life rather than death becasue they retain lingering doubts about the defendant’s guilt, despite having convicted him. The case will be argued in the fall 2005 term. (See New York Times, April 26, 2005).
