ILNews

Accused murderers likely to stay in jail awaiting trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When the Indiana Supreme Court upended 150 years of precedent concerning murder defendants, it raised eyebrows and stirred debate but, in practice, the impact of the opinion is expected to be very limited.

In Loren Hamilton Fry v. State of Indiana, 0900-1205-CR-361, the Supreme Court held that in murder cases, the state, not the defendant, has the burden of proof as to why the individual charged is not entitled to bail. This reversed precedent first set by the same court in the mid-1800s and sustained through the 1900s.

Fry, accused of murdering his neighbor, David H. Schroder, on Sept. 20, 2011, challenged the constitutionality of the state statute which goes beyond Article 1, Section 17 of the Indiana Constitution by including language stating that the person charged with murder has to prove why bail is appropriate.

Appearing before the state Supreme Court, Fry renewed his argument that Indiana Code 35-33-8-2(b) is unconstitutional, and he asserted the state’s founding document does allow for murder defendants to get released on bail.

The Supreme Court split on the decision, submitting four opinions. The majority agreed with Fry that the state statute is unconstitutional.

Joel Schumm mug Schumm

“By placing the burden on the defendant accused of murder or treason in a bail proceeding, we are in effect requiring him, while hampered by incarceration, to disprove the State’s case pre-trial in order to earn the right to be unhampered by incarceration as he prepares to disprove the State’s case at trial,” Justice Steven David wrote for the majority. “There is not a valid justification for such a backwards process.”

Attorneys do not anticipate much will change because of the Supreme Court’s stance. The standard for proving a murder defendant does not deserve jail has been set very low and, should a defendant be found to be eligible for bail, the cost of surety bond will likely be higher than many could afford.

Asking himself rhetorically if the ruling means accused murders will be out on bail, Larry Landis, executive director of the Indiana Public Defender Council, answered, “I think that would be unlikely.”

Constitutional question

Fry’s attorney, solo practitioner Jim Brugh, argued the constitutionality question before the trial court and before the Supreme Court.

In his brief to the Supreme Court, the Logansport attorney asserted Article 1, Section 17, which provides a right to bail, also extends that right to murder defendants except “when the proof is evident or the presumption strong.”

However, Brugh continued, while the state statute mirrors the Indiana Constitution on conditions that must be met for individuals charged with murder, the statute goes too far when it gives the murder defendant the burden of proof that he or she should be admitted to bail.

The trial court declared the statute unconstitutional but still denied Fry the opportunity to post bail.

Brugh based his argument on his reading of laws from other jurisdictions. He found Indiana was in the minority of states requiring the defendant to prove bail is appropriate and, more importantly, no one had ever challenged the law in this state.

In its brief to the Supreme Court, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General maintained the justices did not have to address the question of the statute’s constitutionality. Even with the burden of proof on the state, the trial court still ruled Fry should not receive bail.

Indiana Justice Robert Rucker agreed with the state’s position that because the trial court denied bail, the constitutional question did not need to be considered.

Rucker also expressed hesitancy in overturning 150 years of precedent but he noted, “if the proper case were before us, then I would be in favor of harmonizing the statute in a way to uphold its constitutionality and in the process distinguish rather than overrule existing precedent.”

As part of its brief, the state did review the statute and found grounds supporting its constitutionality. Like Rucker, the state cited the Supreme Court’s consistent interpretation of Article 1, Section 17, for 150 years. The state made the point that Hoosiers have not amended that section of the constitution, and the Legislature has demonstrated agreement with the court by codifying its interpretation.

Joel Schumm, clinical professor of law at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, pointed out the Supreme Court pondered the Fry case a long time, which indicates this issue was not something straightforward for the court to discuss.

“I think all the opinions were thoughtful,” he said. “I think all the opinions did a good job in respecting each other.”

Limited impact

Although the Supreme Court shifted the burden of proof, it held the state has to show only a preponderance of evidence. Meeting this standard, attorneys said, should be easy because it is low and, typically, the state has strong evidence when bringing a murder charge.

“Bail is like insurance to guarantee that the defendant will return to court for trial,” said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the Indiana attorney general’s office. “In finding that the state has the burden of proof to show that a murder defendant should be held without bail, the Indiana Supreme Court found that the state met the burden in the Fry case. Although it is still too early to draw any firm conclusions, early indications are that the practical impact of this decision is quite limited and that murder defendants bailing out while they await trial are the exception, not the usual outcome.”

Brugh said even though he pushed for the court to set the higher standard of “clear and convincing evidence” for the state to meet, he is pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision. The change in the law now puts the burden on the state and gives a person charged with murder the opportunity to get bail based on the facts.

And getting out on bail, Landis said, can make a significant difference in defending against criminal charges.

In general, he said, a defendant who gets released on bail can help the attorney prepare the case, in part, by finding witnesses the attorney may have difficulty locating. Also, the defendant will be more easily accessible to the attorney and any conversations between the defendant and the lawyer will not be recorded as they are in jail.

Finally, Landis continued, studies have shown that defendants who are held pre-trial usually get longer sentences than those who make bail.

“I am very happy to have been able to change the law,” Brugh said. “I am pleased with the decision.”•
 

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. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT