ILNews

Justices affirm cop killer's death sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man sentenced to die for fatally shooting a Morgan County sheriff's deputy in 2001 will remain on death row despite his appellate claims he's mentally ill and not eligible for execution.

The Indiana Supreme Court issued a 56-page post-conviction ruling Tuesday that affirmed the conviction and death sentence of murderer Tommy Pruitt, who'd been rejected in a direct appeal more than three years ago but managed to convince justices to lower the standard of how mental retardation is determined by Hoosier courts.

Justice Frank Sullivan authored the lengthy opinion in Tommy Pruitt v. State of Indiana, No. 15S00-0512-PD-617, delving into Pruitt's many arguments that included ineffective trial and appellate counsel relating to evidence and claims of his mental retardation. A central theme throughout Pruitt's appellate cycle has been that his mental capacity bars him from execution under the Indiana Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

Four of the justices rejected the claims and decided to leave the convictions and death sentence in place. But Justice Robert Rucker - a critic of the court's death penalty decisions who often rules on the side of imprisonment rather than execution - dissented because he's convinced that Pruitt is mentally retarded and shouldn't be put to death.

"After examining the evidence presented to the post-conviction court, I am even more convinced today (that he's mentally retarded and not eligible for the death penalty)," Justice Rucker wrote. "Pruitt's status has not changed. He was and still is mentally retarded. I would therefore reverse his death sentence and remand this cause with instructions to impose a term of years."

On appeal, Pruitt's attorneys made the mental retardation argument and the trial court judge ordered a mental health examination, which showed he did not have mental retardation. In 2003, a jury convicted him and recommended death for the shooting death of Morgan County Deputy Daniel Starnes two years earlier. The judge gave Pruitt the death penalty for a murder charge and 115 years for several other charges, and later denied requests for a new judge and post-conviction relief.

On direct appeal in 2005, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding that Pruitt is not mentally retarded based on the evidence - that his IQ was between 52 and 81 and not quite low enough to be spared. But in that ruling, the court also struck down Indiana's statutory requirement that mental retardation be established by "clear and convincing evidence" because the standard was deemed too high and a violation of the U.S. Constitution as explained in the Atkins ruling.

That decision didn't help Pruitt, but he's now able to turn to the federal courts for relief and would also be able to appeal to Indiana's governor for possible clemency.

Public defender Thomas C. Hinesley, one of the attorneys on this post-conviction appeal, said Pruitt will file a federal appeal and he'd likely fare better in federal court.

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT