Did the Arizona Supreme Court Violate the Constitution When, After a Federal Court Struck a Convicted Individual's Death Sentence on Habeas Corpus Review, It Reconsidered the Sentence Itself, Instead of Remanding the Case to a Jury or Trial Court for Resentencing?

Did the Arizona Supreme Court Violate the Constitution When, After a Federal Court Struck a Convicted Individual's Death Sentence On Habeas Corpus Review, It Reconsidered the Sentence Itself, Instead of Remanding the Case to a Jury or Trial Court for Resentencing? In support of his PTSD claim, McKinney called a psychologist, who testified that he had diagnosed McKinney with "PTSD resulting from the horrific childhood McKinney had suffered." According to McKinney, that's because the Arizona Supreme Court reopened his case for the very purpose of reconsidering his sentence, and sentencing, or in this case resentencing, is a fundamental part of a capital defendant's case. Arizona counters that McKinney's "sweeping" claim that it can only remedy its Eddings violations by resentencing McKinney in a trial court is "unwarranted and would undermine the interests of justice.". [Extracted from the article]