ILNews

Justices set execution in stun-belt restraint case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has denied a condemned inmate's challenge to his death sentence and set a date for what would be the state's first execution in more than two years.

Issuing an order on a post-conviction relief request, justices decided 4-1 to deny the claims in Matthew Eric Wrinkles v. State of Indiana, No. 82S00-0905-SD-249. Wrinkles was convicted and sentenced to die for the murders of his wife, her brother, and her sister-in-law in July 1994. The convictions and sentences have been upheld at the state and federal appellate levels, including claims that Wrinkles had been forced to wear a stun-belt restraint at trial. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up that issue.

In his filing for successive post-conviction relief, Wrinkles argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt and sentencing phases of trial because his attorney did not object to the stun-belt restraint, which may have been visible to jurors. However, the majority of justices determined Wrinkles did not adequately establish a reasonable possibility that he's entitled to post-conviction relief.

Justice Theodore Boehm was the lone dissenter, writing his own opinion that says he would grant Wrinkle's request for a successive post-conviction hearing, as long as it's limited to the determination of whether the penalty phase was held in violation of the 14th Amendment.

"Because I believe the resolution of this case is far from simple, and involves the interplay among several legal doctrines, I attempt to summarize my reasoning at the outset," he wrote, before penning six pages of a dissent.

"A convicted person gets only one opportunity to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Wrinkles has already presented a claim of ineffective assistance," Justice Boehm wrote. "In an ordinary case, that would preclude revisiting that issue. This is a death penalty case, however, and the claim relates only to the penalty, not conviction as to which the lack of prejudice seems clear. I would not permit a death sentence to be carried out without assuring that it has been imposed in accordance with the law."

Without any stay of execution in place, justices issued a separate order setting the lethal injection for before sunrise on Dec. 11.

If the execution goes forward without intervention by federal courts or Gov. Mitch Daniels, then Wrinkles would be the first person executed in Indiana since June 2007 - when Michael Lambert received a lethal injection for the killing of a Muncie police officer almost two decades earlier. In total, 19 people have been executed in Indiana since the state brought back the death penalty - eight since Daniels took office in 2005.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT