Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 (2006)

In the case of Oregon v. Guzek, Randy Lee Guzek was convicted of capital murder for the brutal killings of Rod and Lois Houser during a burglary. Guzek, along with two accomplices, planned the burglary, during which one associate killed Rod Houser, and Guzek subsequently killed Lois Houser. The prosecution's case included confessions from Guzek's associates, who portrayed him as the orchestrator of the crime. Guzek's defense relied on an alibi, supported by testimony from his grandfather and mother, but the jury ultimately found the alibi unconvincing, leading to his conviction and a death sentence. Following his conviction, Guzek appealed, and the Oregon Supreme Court upheld the conviction but vacated the death sentence, ordering a new sentencing proceeding due to identified procedural errors. Guzek was sentenced to death again, but after further appeals, the Oregon Supreme Court found additional faults in the sentencing procedures and ordered yet another resentencing. At this point, the court addressed the admissibility of evidence Guzek wished to present at the new sentencing hearing, specifically live testimony from his mother regarding his alibi. The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Guzek had a constitutional right under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to introduce this evidence at the new sentencing proceeding. The state of Oregon sought a review of this decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, focusing on whether the state could limit the evidence Guzek could present to that which was introduced during his original trial. The Supreme Court's decision ultimately addressed the constitutional implications of this limitation on evidence.

Whether the State may limit the innocence-related evidence that a defendant can introduce at a sentencing proceeding to the evidence introduced at the original trial, and whether such a limitation violates the Constitution.

The judgment is reversed.