- How do you believe the U.S. Supreme Court should rule—for or against Kibbe? Why? Use concepts from the text to support your response and opinions.
On a very cold night in Rochester, New York, Barry Kibbe and a friend met Stafford at a bar. Stafford had been drinking so heavily that the bartender refused to serve him more alcohol, so Kibbe offered to take him barhopping elsewhere. They visited other bars, and at about 9:30 p.m., Kibbe and his friend drove Stafford to a remote point on a highway and demanded his money. They also forced Stafford to lower his trousers and remove his boots to show he had no money hidden. Stafford was then abandoned on the highway, in the cold. A half-hour later, a man driving his truck down the highway saw Stafford standing in the highway, waving his arms for him to stop. The driver saw Stafford too late, and he was struck and killed. Even though the driver of the truck killed Stafford, Kibbe was arrested and charged with robbery and second-degree murder, raising a challenging question of causation—a necessary element in holding someone criminally responsible for a death.
State Court Actions: In State v. Kibbe, Kibbe was tried and convicted of robbery and murder in the second degree. At trial, the judge did not instruct the jury on the subject of causation (e.g., that the government had to prove Kibbe had actually caused Stafford’s death). On appeal to New York’s appeals court, in Kibbe v. Henderson, Kibbe argued that the judge should have given the jury such an instruction so that they would have to determine whether the state had proved this element beyond a reasonable doubt, but the appellate court affirmed his conviction. Then, on appeal to New York’s supreme court, the conviction was also affirmed. Both courts found that the judge did not err in failing to instruct the jury about causation.
Federal Court Actions: Having exhausted all possible state remedies, Kibbe then sought redress in the federal court, filing a writ of habeas corpus with the U.S. district court having jurisdiction and arguing that the trial judge had violated his due process rights by not giving the jury instructions regarding causation. The district court denied the habeas petition, saying that no constitutional question had been raised.
Next, Kibbe appealed to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, making the same argument. This court, however, reversed his conviction, saying that Kibbe had been deprived of due process because of the trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury on causation. Next, the government appealed, this time to the U.S. Supreme Court; in Henderson v. Kibbe, the Supreme Court, issuing a writ of certiorari to the lower court, decided to hear the case.
it has to be 300 words
