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. Im very happy for you, getting ready to go down that dirt road myself, and im praying for the same outcome, because it IS sometimes in the childs best interest to have visitation with grandparents. Thanks for sharing, needed to hear some positive posts for once.

  2. Been there 4 months with 1 paycheck what can i do

  3. our hoa has not communicated any thing that takes place in their "executive meetings" not executive session. They make decisions in these meetings, do not have an agenda, do not notify association memebers and do not keep general meetings minutes. They do not communicate info of any kind to the member, except annual meeting, nobody attends or votes because they think the board is self serving. They keep a deposit fee from club house rental for inspection after someone uses it, there is no inspection I know becausee I rented it, they did not disclose to members that board memebers would be keeping this money, I know it is only 10 dollars but still it is not their money, they hire from within the board for paid positions, no advertising and no request for bids from anyone else, I atteended last annual meeting, went into executive session to elect officers in that session the president brought up the motion to give the secretary a raise of course they all agreed they hired her in, then the minutes stated that a diffeerent board member motioned to give this raise. This board is very clickish and has done things anyway they pleased for over 5 years, what recourse to members have to make changes in the boards conduct

  4. Where may I find an attorney working Pro Bono? Many issues with divorce, my Disability, distribution of IRA's, property, money's and pressured into agreement by my attorney. Leaving me far less than 5% of all after 15 years of marriage. No money to appeal, disabled living on disability income. Attorney's decision brought forward to judge, no evidence ever to finalize divorce. Just 2 weeks ago. Please help.

  5. For the record no one could answer the equal protection / substantive due process challenge I issued in the first post below. The lawless and accountable only to power bureaucrats never did either. All who interface with the Indiana law examiners or JLAP be warned.

ADVERTISEMENT