ILNews

Death row inmate’s habeas petition denied

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in South Bend has denied a death row inmate’s request for habeas corpus, rejecting the man’s claims that he is mentally retarded and, therefore, cannot be sentenced to death.

Chief Judge Robert L Miller Jr. in the Northern District of Indiana released the 83-page decision Tuesday which states the record doesn’t support finding that the Indiana courts acted unreasonably in finding that Tom Pruitt is not mentally retarded and that his attorneys provided anything short of effective assistance.

Pruitt was convicted of murdering Morgan County Deputy Sheriff Daniel Starnes and was sentenced to death. Starnes pulled Pruitt over in June 2001 after seeing Pruitt driving erratically. When Starnes approached Pruitt’s car, Pruitt filed several shots at Starnes and his college-aged son, who was riding along with his dad. Starnes died nearly a month after the shooting after developing an infection.

All along, Pruitt has sought to have the death penalty precluded under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), claiming he suffered from mental retardation and that the imposition of the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment.

A divided Indiana Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence and affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief.

Pruitt raised eight arguments in his habeas corpus petition, including that his execution is barred by the Eighth Amendment because he is mentally retarded, his attorneys were ineffective, and there was an improper jury instruction.

Miller noted that Pruitt is borderline – either a high-functioning mentally retarded individual or an individual with a very low average intelligence – and that the courts “faced the challenge of deciding where Mr. Pruitt fits on that imprecise continuum.”

Miller did grant a certificate of appealability as to four of the claims raised by Pruitt: whether the death sentence violated the Eighth Amendment because he is mentally retarded; whether his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate adequately and present readily available evidence of his mental retardation at the pre-trial mental retardation hearing and at the trial penalty’s phase;  whether his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate and present readily available evidence in support of a verdict of guilty but mentally ill; and whether Pruitt’s death sentence was obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury and his right to due process law because the jury wasn’t instructed that it had to find that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  2. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  3. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  4. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

  5. Once again Indiana has not only shown what little respect it has for animals, but how little respect it has for the welfare of the citizens of the state. Dumping manure in a pond will most certainly pollute the environment and ground water. Who thought of this spiffy plan? No doubt the livestock industry. So all the citizens of Indiana have to suffer pollution for the gain of a few livestock producers who are only concerned about their own profits at the expense of everyone else who lives in this State. Shame on the Environmental Rules Board!

ADVERTISEMENT