ILNews

Federal judge upholds death sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in northern Indiana has denied a condemned inmate’s request to take him off death row, rejecting multiple claims that include one that would basically create a new rule prohibiting those who are severely mentally ill from being executed as is the standard for the mentally retarded.

U.S. Chief Judge Philip Simon in South Bend on Thursday issued an order in the case of Michael Dean Overstreet, who was convicted and sentenced to die in 2000 for the murder, rape, and confinement of Franklin College student Kelly Eckart three years earlier. Johnson Superior Judge Cynthia Emkes imposed the death sentence and that was upheld on direct appeal in 2003 and in post-conviction relief proceedings in subsequent years. Overstreet had been set to be executed by lethal injection May 30, 2008.

But before that date, the convicted killer filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Northern District of Indiana and his execution was stayed.

Overstreet raised 11 claims in his petition for relief, arguments that ranged from ineffective trial and appellate counsel, procedural and evidentiary issues during his trial and appeals, and inadequate review by the Indiana Supreme Court in addressing the issue of whether he should be considered “mentally ill” and eligible for execution.

In early March, Chief Judge Simon issued a 72-page opinion denying the petition on all grounds and upholding the death sentence. The judge granted certifiability on five of those claims for appeal, including procedural issues, whether Overstreet was prejudiced by trial counsel omissions, and the severe mental-illness arguments.

Specifically, on that 11th claim regarding mental illness, Chief Judge Simon wrote that Overstreet is essentially asking the court to extend the landmark holding of Atkins v. Virginia, 536, U.S. 304(2002), that banned the execution of the mentally retarded, to his specific case and condition. At the PCR state level, Indiana Supreme Court Justice Robert Rucker had dissented from his colleagues’ decision about executing Overstreet because under the state Constitution he didn’t see the man’s mental health being practically any different than those who are considered mentally retarded.

“Overstreet essentially asks me to take the state constitutional analysis that Justice Rucker employed and apply its reasoning as federal constitutional law in this case,” Chief Judge Simon wrote in the March order. “That analysis was not supported by any of the four other justices – all of whom disagreed with Justice Rucker’s interpretation of the Indiana Constitution. Moreover, Overstreet has not identified any court which has adopted this position and the 11th Circuit has expressly rejected it. Even assuming that Overstreet suffers from a serious mental illness, I am not convinced that there is a legal basis for adopting what Overstreet himself acknowledges would be a ‘new rule.’ Though the United States Supreme Court may one day extend the underlying principles of Atkins to such defendants, it has not yet done so.”

Overstreet asked the judge to alter his sentence based on misapplication of law, but Chief Judge Simon refused to do that in a five-page order this week.

Now, the death row inmate housed in Michigan City has the opportunity to appeal to the 7th Circuit and ultimately the nation’s highest court before the clemency process begins.
 
 

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. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT