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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT