ILNews

7th Circuit sends Corcoran case back to trial court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Following a remand from the United States Supreme Court in late 2010, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals admitted it made mistakes in its recent decision involving a convicted murderer’s appeal and sent the case to the District Court to address habeas relief claims.

This is the second time this case has been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, and both times the justices reversed the 7th Circuit’s holding. The first time the case made it before the nation’s highest court, the justices vacated the 7th Circuit’s order that the District Court deny the writ for habeas relief, writing that the 7th Circuit should have allowed the District Court to consider Joseph Corcoran’s unresolved challenges to his death sentence on remand.

In the per curiam decision released Thursday in Joseph E. Corcoran v. Bill Wilson, superintendent, Nos. 07-2093, 07-2182, the 7th Circuit admitted to making “two critical misjudgments” – one procedural and one substantive. The procedural mistake was taking up Corcoran’s challenges for habeas relief that weren’t addressed earlier by the District Court instead of sending the case back to the lower court to address them. The District Court considered only two of Corcoran’s claims for relief and held the state courts had reasonably concluded Corcoran was competent to waive his state post-conviction remedies. The District Court also held the prosecutor violated the Sixth Amendment by offering to forgo the death penalty if Corcoran would waive his right to a jury trial. It granted habeas relief on the Sixth Amendment claim and ordered Corcoran re-sentenced to anything but to death.

The judges said this procedural misstep led to the substantive error, which the U.S. Supreme Court pointed out in its November 2010 decision: Federal courts can’t issue any writ of habeas corpus to state prisoners whose confinements don’t violate U.S. law.

Corcoran was convicted of killing four men in 1997 and was sentenced to death. He appealed and initially waived state post-conviction relief after he was found competent to forego further challenges to his sentence. He later changed his mind and tried to file for a petition for post-conviction relief, and that’s when the case moved to federal court.

The Circuit Court reinstated and incorporated by reference its earlier opinion in Corcoran v. Buss to the extent that it reversed the District Court’s judgment granting habeas relief on the basis of the claimed Sixth Amendment violation; and it affirmed the District Court’s conclusion that the Indiana courts did not mishandle the issue of Corcoran’s competence to waive post-conviction remedies. The court also reinstated Judge Ann Claire Williams’ dissent regarding the competency issue.

The case will now be before U.S. Judge Jon DeGuilio, who replaced the late Judge Allen Sharp, to address Corcoran’s remaining grounds for habeas relief.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Thank you, John Smith, for pointing out a needed correction. The article has been revised.

  2. The "National institute for Justice" is an agency for the Dept of Justice. That is not the law firm you are talking about in this article. The "institute for justice" is a public interest law firm. http://ij.org/ thanks for interesting article however

  3. I would like to try to find a lawyer as soon possible I've had my money stolen off of my bank card driver pressed charges and I try to get the information they need it and a Social Security board is just give me a hold up a run around for no reason and now it think it might be too late cuz its been over a year I believe and I can't get the right information they need because they keep giving me the runaroundwhat should I do about that

  4. It is wonderful that Indiana DOC is making some truly admirable and positive changes. People with serious mental illness, intellectual disability or developmental disability will benefit from these changes. It will be much better if people can get some help and resources that promote their health and growth than if they suffer alone. If people experience positive growth or healing of their health issues, they may be less likely to do the things that caused them to come to prison in the first place. This will be of benefit for everyone. I am also so happy that Indiana DOC added correctional personnel and mental health staffing. These are tough issues to work with. There should be adequate staffing in prisons so correctional officers and other staff are able to do the kind of work they really want to do-helping people grow and change-rather than just trying to manage chaos. Correctional officers and other staff deserve this. It would be great to see increased mental health services and services for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities in the community so that fewer people will have to receive help and support in prisons. Community services would like be less expensive, inherently less demeaning and just a whole lot better for everyone.

  5. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

ADVERTISEMENT