ILNews

SCOTUS asked to hear stun-belt case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

When the Supreme Court of the United States returns for its new term beginning in October, Indiana will likely learn whether the high court will hear a case relating to a stun-belt restraint used here during a convicted murder’s trial.

The Indiana attorney general’s office filed a response in mid-June to the certiorari petition filed earlier this year on behalf of John Stephenson, convicted in 1997 for three murders and sentenced to death.

U.S. Judge Theresa Springmann in the Northern District of Indiana found in his favor on a habeas corpus petition and reversed the death sentence, but she didn’t consider all of his arguments on the merits. Last year, the 7th Circuit ordered her to reconsider that ruling because of potential prejudice resulting from his wearing the stun-belt at the sentencing phase. The full appellate court declined to revisit the case en banc and Stephenson could get a new trial based on that penalty-specific issue.

Urging the justices to deny certiorari, the AG’s 11-page brief says SCOTUS review is premature because the lower federal courts haven’t fully analyzed the stun-belt restraint claim involving ineffective assistance of counsel. The AG also objects to Stephenson’s suggestion that the justices retroactively apply recent precedent to his case in a way that is essentially creating a new criminal procedure rule. The 7th Circuit applied existing caselaw from 1984 when determining there was no reasonable probability that Stephenson would have been acquitted if his trial counsel objected to the stun belt or appeared before the jury unrestrained, according to the brief.

The SCOTUS has set this case for consideration at its late September conference following the summer recess.•
 

Rehearing "Court won't rehear stun-belt case" IL Feb. 2-15, 2011

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT