SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – A pending U.S. Supreme Court ruling could impact a South Dakota case that shocked the Sioux Falls community in 2016.

This month, the high court justices heard arguments in Kahler v. Kansas, a case that could determine the constitutionality of the insanity defense.

South Dakota lawmakers have considered but rejected legislation to exempt people with mental illness from the death penalty.

Aya Gruber, a professor of criminal law at the University of Colorado, says the Supreme Court has so far relied on a "shock to the conscience" doctrine as grounds for a death sentence.

"Is it possible that a state can go ahead and punish a severely mentally ill person, the same way that they would punish a completely sane person?” Gruber questions. “Or would that be such a grossly disproportionate punishment that it would shock the conscience?"

A Sioux Falls man eligible for the death penalty awaits trial. In 2016, 24-year-old Heath Otto was charged with killing his mother and nephew, and two counts of first-degree murder make him eligible for the death penalty. His defense lawyers later hired experts who diagnosed Otto with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

In the case before the Supreme Court, James Kahler was convicted and the death sentence was recommended for fatally shooting his ex-wife, her mother and his two daughters. He appealed, claiming his constitutional rights were violated by not being allowed to present an insanity defense.

Gruber notes that insanity is argued in very few cases.

"And of those cases, they're very rarely successful,” she states. “So, this is not like a defense that people are using all the time – this is a rarely used, rarely successful defense."

In death penalty cases, South Dakota currently relies on the M'Naghten Rule, meaning the burden of proof for insanity is on the defendant.

Capital punishment cases typically cost 10 times more than a first-degree murder case, or an average of $1 million more per case than life imprisonment.


get more stories like this via email

Two months from today, Minnesota will begin the process of removing low-level marijuana convictions for those who have them on their criminal records.

It is part of the legalization bill signed into law earlier this week. For most minor convictions, those who are affected can expect an automatic expungement. Past offenses will no longer be in public view, meaning they will not show up in places like background checks for jobs.

Munira Mohamed, policy associate for the ACLU of Minnesota, said the action is a long time coming in addressing arrest disparities in Black and brown communities around the state.

"What we see in a lot of statistics is that white and Black people equally use marijuana, and equally possess marijuana," Mohamed pointed out. "But Black people get arrested 5.4 times more than a white person in Minnesota."

The statistic comes from a 2020 report issued by the ACLU. In the Legislature, Democrats made a strong push this session to adopt a bill legalizing recreational marijuana for adults. Passage included a handful of "yes" votes from Republicans. GOP lawmakers expressed support for the expungement element of the plan, but had broader public-safety concerns.

For marijuana convictions carrying more weight, a special review board will be created to determine whether actions such as reducing sentences should be taken. Collectively, Mohamed predicts the provisions will help a lot of people move on with their lives.

"For example, being caught even with the smallest amounts of marijuana before, it could risk your housing status, your employment opportunities, child-custody determinations," Mohamed outlined.

Just like the criminal record aspect of the bill, marijuana legalization in Minnesota will begin August 1. Small amounts will be allowed for adults, including limitations on how many plants people can grow in their homes. State officials suggest retail sales could begin around the start of 2025.


get more stories like this via email

Illinois could soon be the fourth state to pass a law to prevent unfair youth sentencing.

The legislation encourages criminal courts to recognize youth who are convicted for acts of self-defense or as victims of violence.

Often, young survivors of sexual assault, sex trafficking or domestic abuse are convicted in adult court and given long prison sentences.

Madeleine Behr - policy director at the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation - said the bill would allow judges in these cases to review mitigating information, and give them more discretion to not sentence using mandatory minimums.

"It's just really important to keep in mind how trauma impacts kids as they're growing up, and throughout their young adulthood and really, the neurobiology of trauma with that," said Behr. "The ability for judges to say, 'I can move the child's case back to juvenile court for sentencing,' it gives the judges more options."

The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Lilian Jiménez - D-Chicago - has passed in both House and Senate.

More than 32,000 people in U.S. prisons today have been there since childhood, according to a report by Human Rights for Kids - which ranks Illinois 11th among states for incarcerating minors in adult prisons.

Behr cited cases like those of Chrystul Kizer, Cyntoia Brown-Long, and Sara Kruzan as reasons for the changes outlined in the bill. Gov. JB Pritzker is expected to sign it into law - and Behr said it can't happen too soon.

"We often have a system that has mandatory minimums as kind-of arbitrary guidelines that really are focused on punishment and retribution, rather than healing and restoration," said Behr. "There are not a lot of cases specifically I've seen in Illinois that this law will impact, but I'm hoping that it's a preventative measure."

Some 24% of boys and 45% of girls in the juvenile justice system have experienced trauma through at least five Adverse Childhood Experiences, according to a report by the nonprofit Rights4Girls.




get more stories like this via email

The first people to make use of a new state law on sealing criminal records are set to go before a judge today.

Previously, only people whose conviction did not result in incarceration could petition for expungement.

Jay Jordan, CEO of the nonprofit Alliance for Safety and Justice, which pushed for the law, will ask a judge in Stockton to seal his decades-old robbery conviction, and added Senate Bill 731 will give people who have paid their dues a clean slate.

"If you have a conviction in the state of California, and it did result in a prison term, and you finished probation or parole and have been crime-free for two years, then you can petition the court for an expungement," Jordan outlined.

If your conviction did not lead to time behind bars, and you meet those same criteria, the State of California will now automatically expunge your record. Seven other people will also petition the court for expungement today. A felony conviction can be a big obstacle when people try to find a job, rent an apartment, adopt a child or even chaperone a school field trip.

A recent federal budget agreement included $95 million to help states expunge criminal records. Jordan emphasized it is in everyone's best interest to help formerly incarcerated people rebuild their lives.

"Upwards of 92% of people who have records have already served their time, are over the age of 35, and have been removed from the criminal justice system five to seven years," Jordan pointed out. "By all accounts, they are not recidivating. These are mothers, fathers. So expungement is public safety, it is economic development, and it's really about families."

Under the new law, sex offenders cannot apply for an expungement, and law enforcement, government, schools and agencies dealing with vulnerable populations can still see people's criminal records.