ILNews

SCOTUS declines death row inmate's appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The nation's highest court has declined to accept a death row inmate's case, leaving intact an Indiana judge's ruling that OK'd a federal prison policy banning face-to-face interviews with reporters.

In an order list issued today, the Supreme Court of the United States indicated that during its March 5 conference it denied certiorari in David Paul Hammer v. John D. Ashcroft, et al., No. 09-504, which involves the federal prison inmate being housed in Terre Haute. Even though a federal judge tossed David Paul Hammer's sentence in 2005, he remains on death row as the government is still deciding whether to re-seek execution.

The appeal involved Hammer's challenge to a policy adopted by the U.S. Attorney, which banned death row inmates from conducting in-person interviews with the media after Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh in 2000 appeared on "60 Minutes." Hammer sued in 2004, and in February 2006 then-U.S. District Judge John D. Tinder in Indianapolis granted summary judgment against him. A 7th Circuit panel reversed that decision in 2008, but last summer the full court affirmed Judge Tinder - who by then was elevated to the appellate bench but didn't participate in this decision. Attorneys appealed to the SCOTUS in October, but justices declined to intervene in the prison free-speech case even though 23 news media organizations had urged them to hear the case.

Originally sentenced to die in 1998 for the April 1996 strangling death of his cellmate, Hammer has been appealing that death sentence for a decade. He's gotten national attention for not only his appeals but also his prison behavior through the years. An insulin-dependent diabetic, Hammer attempted suicide the night before McVeigh's execution in 2001 by injecting insulin directly into his veins; later that year he also went on a hunger strike and refused food and insulin because of visitation problems.

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT