ILNews

Justices split on decision to allow a third try for death penalty

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
 A split decision by the Indiana Supreme Court today allows the state to seek the death penalty a third time against a man convicted of shooting a Gary police officer in a robbery gone bad in 1981.

The 3-2 decision came late this afternoon with Justices Theodore Boehm and Robert Rucker dissenting in separate opinions. Justice Frank Sullivan authorized the majority's 22-page opinion. The ruling in State of Indiana v. Zolo Agona Azania, No. 02S03-0508-PD-364 (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05100701fsj.pdf), reverses a trial court decision and orders a new penalty phase.

In 2005, Allen Superior Judge Steve David barred prosecutors from seeking the death penalty for a third time because of the lapse of time and ensuing issues that involve speedy trials, due process, and fundamental fairness arguments.

Azania was first convicted in 1982 of murder for a robbery of the Gary National Bank the year before, which resulted in the shooting death of Lt. George Yaros. Azania and two others were trying to flee the bank - they both received 60-year sentences; Azania's penalty hasn't been that clear-cut. The Indiana Supreme Court has twice overturned his death sentence, although the conviction has withstood the test of time.

During arguments in June, this ruling's author, Justice Sullivan, wondered out load if there was some point in time where it's not fair to go through the penalty phase where death is on the line. Challenges presented in this appeal include old evidence, the death of key witnesses on both sides, and how Azania's mitigation witnesses are no longer alive to testify in person.

In his opinion, Justice Sullivan wrote, "We find that neither the delay nor any prejudice that Azania may suffer from it violates his constitutional rights. The State may continue to seek the death penalty."

However, the dissenting justices pointed out how novel these arguments are and that justices on the Supreme Court of the United States have invited state and lower court judges to consider whether the passage of time alone is sufficient to question execution.

"I recognize that the (SCOTUS) has yet to entertain a Lacky claim despite invitations from Justices Stevens and Breyer to do so," Justice Boehm wrote, referring to Lacky v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (1995). "I therefore cannot conclude that such a claim is established under the Federal Constitution. I do, however, find the reasoning ... to be persuasive and therefore would hold that the Indiana Constitution prevents further pursuit of the death penalty in this case."
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. 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.

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

  3. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  4. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  5. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

ADVERTISEMENT