And in this particular case, why the eff didn't they get separate trials? It's why the executions were overturned and could at least show one brother did more or threatened the other or something.
It was because they didn't separate trials at the sentencing phase, IIRC.
Also, they don't separate trials because they're supposedly way less efficient. I didn't read the entire 450 page opinion, but in a case like this, where the crimes are so closely linked together, it makes no sense to separate the trials (at least before sentencing -- i've never read about the purpose of having separate sentences). If they separated the trials, I'd imagine the evidence presented at each trial would be virtually identical.
This is correct. I have admitedly very little criminal law experience, but I'm not seeing the valid distinction between trying two co-defendants together (a phase that's really more fundamental and important than sentencing), and sentencing them together. The Court found no fault with trying them together (how could they?), but overturned the dealth penalty based on the joint sentencing. Seems that this Court, which has not appoved a death sentence in decades, was reaching for any possible reason to set these sentences aside. Smacks of activism.
What I'm not sure on is whether prosecutors can re-seek the dealth penalty in the new sentencing proceedings. If they can, they should.
Update: As I learn more about this, the SC only narrowly voted 4-3 not to overturn all the convictions due to not getting seperate trials. One vote away from brand new trials. Good lord, we have some real lunatics on the KS Supreme Court.
Update 2: I guess the dealth penalty is still possible. "In response to a question, [the prosecutor] told reporters he would seek the death penalty against the brothers a second time."
