Case 6: Kahler vs. Kansas

Case 6: Kahler vs. Kansas

Kahler vs. Kansas is a pending case in the U.S. Supreme Court and centers on the use of insanity as a defense in criminal cases.

Case facts: After enjoying marriage for several years, James Kahler’s marriage took a turn for the worst in 2008 when his wife started an extramarital affair. By the next year, the coupled was heading for a divorce, and it is alleged that Kahler had become abusive towards his wife and teenage daughters. During this time, Kahler developed mental problems, and despite being prescribed for sleep aids and other medications, he refused to take them. In late 2009, Kahler fatally shot and killed his estranged wife, her grandmother, and his two daughters. After the incident, he was charged and sentenced to death for the murders in August 2011. Kahler appealed the sentence arguing that the prosecution violated his right to a fair trial, a decision that was upheld and affirmed by the Kansas Supreme Court. Kahler appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Kansas law used to convict him violated his rights provided by the Eighth ( burns cruel and unusual punishment) and Fourteenth (due process clause) Amendments. According to him, the K.S.A. 22-3220 was unconstitutional since it failed to allow him to use the “insanity defense.”

While the Kahler vs. Kansas case may only affect a few individuals, it has broader significance. If states such as Kansas are prohibited from punishing offenders with severe mental conditions, the Supreme Court will demonstrate what the US criminal justice system represents. Thus, those who are unaware of their actions will not be blamed for them. I hope that the Supreme Court will rule against the Kansas law. This is because the insanity defense is deeply rooted in the common law and is crucial to the U.S. legal tradition of protecting the few individuals who cannot differentiate between right and wrong or control their actions.

However, I believe that the Supreme Court is more likely to rule in favor of the state of Kansas. Given that Kansas has not entirely abolished the “insanity defense,” the court could argue that Kahler was convicted based on the broadened version of the “insanity defense” that takes into account how mental illnesses influence crime culpability. Besides, “insanity defense” standards and procedures are squarely up to the states.

Case 13: Torres vs. Madrid

Torres vs. Madrid is a case scheduled for argument before the US Supreme Court in late March.

Case Facts: Roxanne Torres was involved in an incident with the police in 2014. According to the police, she was driving under the influence of methamphetamine and resisting arrest. While fleeing from the arresting officers, she endangered their lives. In the process of pursuing her, one of the officers shot and injured her. Torres pleaded no contest to three crimes against her related to the event: Aggravated fleeing from a law enforcement officer, assault on a police officer, and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle.

However, in October 2016, Torres filed a civil-rights complaint against the two officers in the district federal court alleging excessive force. The district court interpreted Torres’s complaint as propounding the excessive-force claims under the fourth amendment and ruled that officers were entitled to qualified immunity. According to the court, the officers had not seized Torres at the time of the shooting, and given that there was no seizure, the fourth amendment was not violated. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling prompting Torres to file an appeal at the Supreme Court. The appeal questions whether the Fourth Amendment applies to a law enforcer’s intentional use of physical force in pursuant of a fleeing offender if that use of force is not successful in immobilizing the individual.

Unless the Supreme Court reverses the Tenth Circuit’s decision, the wide range of physical force used by the police across the country will be immune from any form of intelligent analysis whenever it fails to immobilize an individual completely. Upholding the decision will result in a society where there will be zero police accountability, and the officers will abuse their powers against whoever they want under the pretext of “resisting arrest” or “fleeing.” For this reason, I look forward to the Supreme Court overturning the Tenth Circuit’s decision.

Moreover, the decision by the Tenth Circuit is a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s previous Fourth Amendment case law. It further contradicts the court’s old tradition of protecting citizens and their property from violation provided in the Fourth Amendment.