Court: delayed rape conviction OK

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant's rape conviction, finding his due process rights weren't violated when charges were filed in 2005 for a rape that happened nearly 25 years earlier.

In Thomas N. Schiro v. State of Indiana, No. 10A01-0701-CR-21, Thomas Schiro appealed his conviction of felony rape, arguing the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the charges brought against him in 2005 for two rapes that occurred in 1980 and by admitting his written sexual autobiography and a photograph of his victim with her disabled daughter.

Schiro was in prison in 2005 when the state filed rape charges against him, alleging he had committed two rapes in late 1980. Schiro was in prison following his conviction for felony murder of an Evansville woman in February 1981. He was originally sentenced to death, which is why the state failed to file the rape charges against him for the two rapes in which both women at the time identified Schiro as their attacker. However, the Indiana Supreme Court set aside his death sentence in 1996 and imposed a 60-year sentence instead.

The state reopened the investigation into the rapes in 1997 but couldn't locate L.S., one of the victims. The state also had trouble finding Schiro's former girlfriend, who they believed was a key prosecution witness. Eventually, G.G., the other victim, L.S., and Schiro's ex-girlfriend were all found by 2005. The state charged Schiro with felony rape and felony criminal deviate conduct against both G.G. and L.S. Schiro filed motions to dismiss the charges, which the trial court denied.

The state also allowed portions of Schiro's sexual "autobiography" - written during a mental evaluation prior to his murder trial - which chronicled rapes, sexual assaults, and other crimes into evidence, as well as a photograph of L.S. with her disabled child. Schiro was found guilty on the charges committed against L.S., but not G.G. He was sentenced only on the rape charge because the statute of limitations had run out on the criminal deviate conduct charge. The trial court imposed a 40-year sentence.

On appeal, Schiro failed to show the state's delay in filing the charges was inexcusable. It would have been a waste of taxpayer money to prosecute him for the G.G. and L.S. rape cases while Schiro was in prison on a death sentence. Once his sentence was reduced, the prosecution opened the case and waited until they had both victims and a key witness before proceeding with the charges, wrote Judge James Kirsch.

"Schiro has failed to establish that the evidence is without conflict and leads inescapably to the conclusion that he is entitled to a dismissal. Consequently, we find no trial court error in its decision to deny Schiro's motion to dismiss on the basis of prosecutorial vindictiveness," he wrote.

In regards to the admission of Schiro's sexual autobiography, the Court of Appeals concluded the probative value of the statements wasn't substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, so there was no error in admitting portions of the text. The trial court also didn't err in admitting the photograph of L.S. with her disabled daughter because L.S. had already testified that her daughter was at home at the time of the attack and had cerebral palsy. Even if the state excluded the photograph, there was enough evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer Schiro's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge wrote.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.