ILNews

SCOTUS set to start term

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Next week will be a big one for Indiana in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The nation's highest court will hear six arguments next week, including a much-anticipated and publicized case involving Indiana's voter identification law, and another state's case that has Hoosier interest on the constitutionality of lethal injections.

On Tuesday, the justices will take on a pair of Indiana cases. The combined cases are Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, No. 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, No. 07-25, which challenge the state's two-year-old voter photo ID law that has been upheld by both U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The cases are the first scheduled that morning, which begin at 10 a.m. Arguments are expected to last about an hour.

On Monday, the SCOTUS' second case of the morning will be a Kentucky case questioning the state's use of lethal injection, and whether a three-chemical concoction used is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment. That case is Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439, and takes on an issue that has been raised frequently by Indiana death row inmates, including three in the past year who are now all dead.

Those inmates had filed federal suits challenging the state's lethal injection method, making similar cruel and unusual punishment claims. Their petitions challenged how Indiana executes death row inmates, with claims that they'd be fully conscious and in agonizing pain for the duration of the execution process. They argued that state inmates who've been executed have repeatedly failed to receive adequate anesthesia and have remained conscious during the administration of lethal drugs. Other states have halted executions to review this method.

But the suits never gained steam in District Court and are now moot on the grounds that all three are dead. David Leon Woods and Michael Lambert were executed by lethal injection last year; the third, Norman Timberlake, died from natural causes in his Michigan City cell in November while still on death row.

Aside from those cases, justices also will consider issues during the week that involve immigration and deportation, employment age discrimination, taxes and nontradable return of capital, and whether a defendant's lawyer can waive the right to a federal judge presiding over jury selection without consulting that client. While the court doesn't hold arguments Thursday or Friday, justices will meet Friday in private conference and could decide when to schedule arguments in another Indiana case it's accepted.

That case is Indiana v. Ahmad Edwards, No. 07-208, which asks whether the Sixth Amendment grants someone found competent to stand trial the right to represent himself in a criminal proceeding. In early December, the court agreed to hear that case and it has tentatively set arguments for March, though a docket date hasn't yet been set.

The Supreme Court's arguments are not televised or broadcast live, but coverage of can be found online on the Indiana Lawyer Web site at www.theindianalawyer.com, as well as in the Indiana Lawyer Daily and print editions of the newspaper.
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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. by the time anybody gets to such files they will probably have been totally vacuumed anyways. they're pros at this at universities. anything to protect their incomes. Still, a laudable attempt. Let's go for throat though: how about the idea of unionizing football college football players so they can get a fair shake for their work? then if one of the players is a pain in the neck cut them loose instead of protecting them. if that kills the big programs, great, what do they have to do with learning anyways? nada. just another way for universities to rake in the billions even as they skate from paying taxes with their bogus "nonprofit" status.

  2. Um the affidavit from the lawyer is admissible, competent evidence of reasonableness itself. And anybody who had done law work in small claims court would not have blinked at that modest fee. Where do judges come up with this stuff? Somebody is showing a lack of experience and it wasn't the lawyers

  3. My children were taken away a year ago due to drugs, and u struggled to get things on track, and now that I have been passing drug screens for almost 6 months now and not missing visits they have already filed to take my rights away. I need help.....I can't loose my babies. Plz feel free to call if u can help. Sarah at 765-865-7589

  4. Females now rule over every appellate court in Indiana, and from the federal southern district, as well as at the head of many judicial agencies. Give me a break, ladies! Can we men organize guy-only clubs to tell our sob stories about being too sexy for our shirts and not being picked for appellate court openings? Nope, that would be sexist! Ah modernity, such a ball of confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRsWdK0PRI

  5. LOL thanks Jennifer, thanks to me for reading, but not reading closely enough! I thought about it after posting and realized such is just what was reported. My bad. NOW ... how about reporting who the attorneys were raking in the Purdue alum dollars?

ADVERTISEMENT