ILNews

SCOTUS asked to take Indiana stun belt case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States is being asked to consider an Indiana case about a convicted murderer’s claim that he was improperly restrained with a stun belt during his trial and that led to a wrongful conviction.

On March 21, the nation’s highest court received a writ of certiorari in the case of John M. Stephenson v. Bill Wilson, superintendent of Indiana State Prison, No. 09-2924, which follows an August 2010 decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that reversed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Theresa Springmann in the Northern District of Indiana that John Stephenson received ineffective assistance of counsel for not raising the stun belt argument.

Stephenson was convicted by a jury in 1997 for three murders and sentenced to death. Four jurors later said in affidavits they were aware Stephenson was wearing a stun belt. After an unsuccessful direct appeal to the SCOTUS, Stephenson filed a writ of federal habeas corpus and Judge Springmann in 2009 tossed out his capital sentence on the stun belt claim, but didn’t rule on other issues he raised.

The 7th Circuit last year ordered the District judge to reconsider her ruling, finding that the question of prejudice from the stun belt at the penalty hearing requires more consideration. Stephenson filed a petition for rehearing but the appellate court was divided on whether to rehear the case and ultimately denied that request.

Though Stephenson is entitled to a new trial already as Judge Springmann concluded based on the penalty phase aspects, Stephenson and his attorneys are raising the stun belt issues before the SCOTUS.

The cert petition raises three questions:
•    Whether SCOTUS precedent from 1986 and 2005 still applies or whether a federal court is able to assume that a jury’s awareness of the restraint had no effect on the verdict unless the defendant can produce actual evidence of prejudice?
•    Whether the panel’s determination that trial counsel’s vigorous defense precluded any possibility of any prejudice and meets the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984)?
•    Is there a reasonable probability Stephenson wouldn’t be convicted on the evidence if not for the jurors’ awareness of the stun belt being worn at trial?

Defense attorneys are asking that both Stephenson’s convictions and death sentence be vacated.

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office has until April 18 to submit a reply brief, according to spokesman Bryan Corbin.

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT