ILNews

Condemned man's appeals coming to end

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected one of the last appeals attempts by a man set to die Friday for the execution-style shooting death of a Muncie police officer in 1990.

A five-page unanimous decision by the three-judge panel in the federal appeals court in Chicago rejected Michael Allen Lambert's claims for relief in Lambert v. Edwin G. Buss, Nos. 03-1015 and 05-2610. The ruling upholds the judgment by U.S. District Judge Larry McKinney in Indianapolis.

In its opinion, the panel wrote per curiam that only the Supreme Court of the United States has the power to make a decision on Lambert's behalf, as previous attempts and rulings have nearly exhausted his relief possibilities.

While Lambert's requests are to file successive petitions for habeas relief under the federal Constitution, they are "actually masquerading as motions to recall mandates. While we certainly do not fault Mr. Lambert for leaving no stone unturned in his effort to stave off his execution, the relief he seeks is quite extraordinary."

The court can recall mandates but will only do so in extraordinary circumstances, it wrote. This case doesn't present those circumstances, according to the court.

"Any further relief must come from the (U.S.) Supreme Court," Circuit Judge Kenneth Ripple wrote in his concurrence.

Lambert's attorneys have filed a petition with SCOTUS to block the execution, but the high court hasn't ruled on that. In the petition, one issue cited is how at least two Indiana Supreme Court justices have disagreed on the imposition of death sentences, even during Lambert's appeals calling it "constitutionally infirm under both State and Federal constitutions."

When the Indiana Supreme Court denied post-conviction relief in May, Justices Theodore Boehm and Robert D. Rucker both dissented. Justice Boehm cited his dissent from Lambert's previous appeal in 2005 that said, "Without an error-free penalty phase, the death sentence could not stand under the current Indiana statute, and a new penalty phase was required."

Aside from court appeals, Gov. Mitch Daniels also has the authority to halt the execution despite a recommendation from the state parole board last week to deny clemency.

If Lambert is executed Friday as scheduled, he will be the second person put to death by lethal injection this year. David Leon Woods was executed in May for the 1984 killing of a 77-year-old neighbor in Fort Wayne. The January execution of Norman Timberlake was temporarily halted while the U.S. Supreme Court reviews a similar case. A ruling on that is expected later this year.
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. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT