ILNews

Federal court stays Roy Lee Ward’s execution

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal appeals court judge Tuesday granted a stay of execution for an Indiana man convicted of the torturous rape and murder of a 15-year-old girl.

Roy Lee Ward, 40, was convicted in 2001 of the mutilation killing of Stacy Payne in Spencer County, and the Indiana Supreme Court in June affirmed his sentence. Ward had been scheduled to be executed on Dec. 11 barring a stay from a federal court.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana stayed Ward’s execution for 90 days and appointed attorneys Marie F. Donnelly and Laurence E. Komp to file a writ of habeas corpus no later than March 4.

In June, the Indiana Supreme Court denied Ward’s bid for post-conviction relief from his death sentence after it previously had reversed his first conviction due to prejudicial publicity. Ward again was sentenced to death in 2007 after he pleaded guilty to the charges before a special judge from Clay County in a proceeding in Vanderburgh County.

The Indiana Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Roy Lee Ward v. State of Indiana, 74S00-0907-PD-320, held that mitigating factors such as Ward’s mental health and upbringing were properly heard in post-conviction relief, and in some cases Ward raised claims in PCR that were unknown at the time of his trial.

The opinion written by Justice Frank Sullivan detailed the grisly nature of Ward’s crime and found that any mitigating factors that had not been presented at sentencing would have been unlikely to persuade jurors to impose a sentence of life without parole.

“The dominant features of Ward’s makeup as it relates to this case are his antisocial personality and his total lack of remorse,” Sullivan wrote. “ … We found the evidence of torture and mutilation to be overwhelming.”

Ward is one of 12 people on Indiana’s death row at Michigan City, all of whose appeals are now in the federal court system, according the Indiana Public Defender Council.

 

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT