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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues