State of Arizona v Edward James Rose

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. The State argued that under Rule 32.1G, the defendant bears the burden to show that applying a significant change in law would probably have changed his sentence, rather than shifting the burden to the State to prove harmlessness.
2. The State contended that Rule 32.1G is a specific rule that places the prejudice burden on the defendant, meaning Rule 32.1C (which requires the State to show harmless error for constitutional violations) does not apply in this context.
3. The defense argued that the phrase 'probably overturn' in Rule 32.1G is broad and encompasses various prejudice standards, including the requirement for the State to prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt under Rule 32.1C if a constitutional violation is found.
4. The defense maintained that once the defendant shows a significant change in law applies, the burden shifts to the State to demonstrate that any resulting error was harmless, particularly because the defendant has not previously had the opportunity for Chapman review.
5. Both parties agreed that if the Supreme Court reverses the Superior Court's grant of relief on the Simmons claim, the intellectual disability issues should be remanded to the trial court for initial determination rather than being decided by the appellate court.
6. The State expressed hesitation in arguing that the defendant's Atkins claim is definitively waived due to complexities regarding whether an intellectually disabled defendant can knowingly and intelligently waive such rights, noting implications for future federal habeas proceedings.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT46M23S · Captions available