Washington ? A Lawrence lawyer squared off against Kansas Atty. Gen. Phill Kline before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday in a case that considers whether Kansas’ death penalty law unfairly directs jurors to choose death over a life sentence.

The state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 last year that the death penalty law was unconstitutional because it told jurors to impose a death sentence if they found that aggravating evidence of the crime’s brutality and mitigating factors explaining a defendant’s actions were of equal weight.

Kline argued that the state law met constitutional standards as long as it allowed a jury to consider mitigating factors.

“It is undisputed that the … mitigating evidence was presented to the jury in full, and the jury was specifically instructed to give weight to all of that evidence,” Kline said.

Lawrence resident Rebecca Woodman, of the Kansas Capital Appellate Defender’s Office, told the justices that was not enough. She argued that the state law interfered with a jury’s ability to reach a decision by requiring a sentence of death when aggravating and mitigating factors were equal.

• Lawrence attorneys to fight death penalty (11-21-05)
• See more stories about the state’s death penalty

“In other words, if the decision is too hard to make, the sentence must be death,” Woodman said.

Kline faced tough questions from Justice David Souter, who said the law seemed to create “a presumption of death.” Justice Stephen Breyer also raised concerns that the law might conflict with the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

“You do not sentence someone to death unless the jury decides that the circumstances have made the person somewhat worse … than the typical person,” Breyer said.

Kline said the law did not carry a presumption of death and argued that the burden remained on the state to show mitigating evidence did not outweigh the aggravating factors.

Chief Justice John Roberts wondered how likely it was that a juror who found the factors were perfectly balanced would conclude the state had made its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice Antonin Scalia said jurors under the Kansas scheme always had a way out: They can grant mercy to a defendant in any case.

“I really don’t know what complaint you have then,” he told Woodman.

Woodman said the state law encouraged jurors “to abdicate their decision as to whether there should be a death sentence or not.”

The case involves Michael Lee Marsh II, who was convicted in the June 1996 killings of Marry Ane Pusch and her 19-month-old daughter, M.P.

Pusch was shot, stabbed and her throat slit. Then she was doused with lighter fluid and set on fire. Her daughter, who suffered severe burns in the fire, died later.

Marsh confessed to shooting Marry Ane, but denied that he stabbed her or set the fire. He was eventually sentenced to death for killing M.P. and life in prison for killing Marry Ane.

His case is already headed for a new trial on the capital murder charges because the trial judge did not allow evidence that Marry Ane’s husband may have been involved in the murders.

If the high court upholds the Kansas law, the sentences for seven men on death row will stand. If they affirm the state court’s ruling, the seven will be resentenced and death will not be an option.

Fifteen states have filed a friend of the court brief supporting Kline’s position. They argue a ruling against Kansas would call into question their own death penalty statutes.

The Kansas case is one of two death-penalty cases the Supreme Court heard Wednesday. The other, from Oregon, involves a convicted murderer’s ability to present alibi testimony during the sentencing phase of a capital trial.

Kannon Shanmugam, a Lawrence High School graduate who works in the office of the U.S. Solicitor General, was scheduled to argue before the court in the Oregon case.

The high court is not expected to rule on either case until spring.