Supreme Court to rule on evidence limits at death penalty sentencing
High court accepts cases for 2005-2006 session
By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court said Monday it will decide whether a convicted murderer can present evidence at sentencing that might call into question his guilt or culpability, a case with strong parallels to an expected death penalty appeal by confessed terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui.
The case was one of three the high court announced it would accept for its 2005-2006 session. All three appeals will be heard after October, when the court's next session begins.
At issue is how far defendants facing execution can go to present so-called "findings of fact," that could decide whether capital punishment will be imposed. It is the latest in a series of important death penalty appeals the court will consider since it reimposed capital punishment in 1976.
This term, the justices have already ruled that executing juvenile killers is unconstitutional, and will soon decide what rights foreign national on death row deserve.
This latest appeals involves Randy Guzek, whose death sentence has been overturned three times by Oregon's highest court. He was 18 when he and two other accomplices robbed the home of Rod and Lois Houser in June 1987. Court testimony showed Guzek, under the influence of methamphetamines, ordered an accomplice to kill Rod Houser. Lois Houser was then chased up a staircase and shot four times by Guzek, who then ripped her wedding ring off her hand.
Guzek was arrested days later after the Houser's tablecloth was found on his own dinner table.
The two other accomplices pleaded guilty and testified against Guzek.
He was convicted of two counts of murder, but during the sentencing portion of the trial, Guzek tried to introduce witness testimony that placed him away from the murder scene.
His attorneys called this "mitigating evidence" designed to spare the young man from lethal injection. The judge disagreed, calling it "alibi evidence" that went straight to whether a defendant was guilty.
The Oregon Supreme Court overruled the judge, saying such evidence was allowed at both the sentencing as well as the guilt or innocence phase. The state's high court has overturned Guzek's death sentence on two other occasions, the latest a year ago.
In a separate appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court last week rejected Guzek's attempt to overturn the state's death penalty as unconstitutional. Deschutes County District Attorney Michael Dugan said he will try again get a death sentence for Guzek.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that capital defendants are not automatically entitled to have juries consider such "alibi evidence" during sentencing.
A ruling in Guzek's "alibi evidence" appeal could set an important precedent in Moussaoui's appeal. The Moroccan native pleaded guilty last week in federal court to six terrorism counts, and being part of a conspiracy to commit post-September 11 attacks.
The case is Oregon v. Guzek, case no. 04-0928.
Delinquent college loans case accepted
In another case, the justices accepted an appeal from James Lockhart, a disabled Washington-state man whose Social Security benefits were withheld after he failed to repay delinquent college loans.
At issue is whether Social Security benefits are exempt from a law setting a 10-year statute of limitations for most types of repayment of college loan debt. The U.S. Education Department said that as of August 2004, more than half of the $7 billion in college loans owed the government had been pending for more than a decade.
The government, in its filing with the court, argued that the exception to federal debt collection laws is important because in many cases, "the student debtor has successfully evaded for many years (or even decades) all other efforts to collect the debt by the lender, the guaranty agency, and the Department of Education."
Preventing the withholding of Social Security benefits for such long-term debtors, argues the government, "would deprive the Secretary (of Education) of the most efficient (and, in many instances, the only) means of collecting delinquent debt to the United States."
Lockhart received four college loans between 1984 and 1989, and by 2002 he had failed to repay about $80,000 in debts. Starting that year, up to $143.10 a month in Social Security was being withheld from his monthly disability check, totaling about $3,555. In addition to the time limitations, Lockhart also claims he had filed for bankruptcy and therefore was protected from the withholding penalty.
The case is Lockhart v. U.S., case no. 04-0881.
Postal Service involved in negligence suit
Negligence cases are a common part of civil court proceedings, but a pending lawsuit against postal officials has put a new twist on the liability of the U.S. government.
The appeal involves Barbara Dolan of Pennsylvania, who fell over packages and letters placed on her porch by a U.S. Postal Service employee in August 2001. She and her husband then sued the government.
At issue is an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, which normally provides "sovereign immunity" over lawsuits against the federal government, unless they involve government workers acting negligently in their official duties.
But under the law, postal workers are given special protection from lawsuits, in cases involving "the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matters."
Dolan argued that "negligent transmission" does not apply to "negligent" placing of the mail at a residence or business.
A federal appeals disagreed, ruling, "there is nothing out of the ordinary about a USPS employee delivering the mail or placing the mail on the porch instead of in the mailbox. ... Because USPS employees do not monitor how the mail they deliver is retrieved by third parties, mishaps related to the retrieval of the mail may be unavoidable."
The case is Dolan v. USPS, case no. 04-0848.
