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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT