ILNews

Court rules on habeas corpus competency case

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a case of first impression today regarding a prisoner's competency to continue on with habeas corpus proceedings. In its decision, the Circuit Court remanded to the District Court.

Circuit Judge Richard Posner wrote the court finds it odd to think that someone who initiates a habeas corpus proceeding can then later freeze it by claiming to be mentally incompetent. That is what Eric Holmes is claming in Eric D. Holmes v. Edwin G. Buss, 04-3549, 06-2905. Holmes has been sentenced to death for committing two murders in 1992.

Holmes filed two petitions for federal habeas corpus but later claimed he was not competent to assist his lawyer with the proceedings. District Judge Larry McKinney ruled in 2003 Holmes was competent after questioning him and denied habeas corpus relief. Holmes appealed, and in 2005 the 7th Circuit remanded to the District Court to determine Holmes' competency to proceed with the appeal because his counsel had said Holmes' mental condition had deteriorated since the April 2003 hearing. This time, Judge McKinney consulted two expert doctors and also questioned Holmes. Judge McKinney also denied Holmes' request that one of the doctors be made available for cross-examination; the appeal in the 7th Circuit then continued.

The 9th Circuit Court held that in a capital case a petitioner for federal habeas corpus must be competent to assist his counsel, and if not, the proceeding must be stayed, Rohan ex rel. Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2003). In a capital case, it makes sense a prisoner would seek to be proven to be incompetent after trial because an execution can be stayed until he is evaluated.

The state in this case argues there should be a higher standard for assessing incompetence after trial because the client's role in assisting his attorney in a post-conviction proceeding is more limited than if he is on trial; Holmes argues that the standard should be the same.

Judge Posner wrote the idea of creating different standards to determine competence is not a good idea. The competency test should include the litigant's particular mental condition and the nature of the decision that he must be competent to make.

Judge McKinney made his decision that Holmes was competent to assist his attorney in the appellate phase of habeas corpus proceedings based on what Holmes said at the hearings. Judge Posner wrote that the Circuit Court is puzzled that Judge McKinney didn't allow cross-examination the doctors who examined Holmes.

The case is remanded to the District Court to determine Holmes' competency.
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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT