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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT