ILNews

SCOTUS declines Indiana death penalty case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The nation’s highest court won’t re-consider a ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court late last year that upheld a man’s death sentence and revised its stance on what it means when a jury fails to recommend a unanimous sentence.

In a private conference Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a writ of certiorari in the case of Daniel Ray Wilkes v. Indiana, 09-1539, which stems from the state Supreme Court’s unanimous direct appeal ruling Dec. 9, 2009. The justices affirmed Daniel Ray Wilkes' convictions and death penalty and in March denied a rehearing request. His defense attorneys in June filed a request with the SCOTUS for review. An order list issued today shows the court declined the request.

Wilkes was arrested in 2006 for the murders in Evansville of Donna Claspell and her daughters, 13-year-old Avery Pike and 8-year-old Sydne Claspell, and a jury ultimately found him guilty. But the jurors couldn’t reach a unanimous agreement on whether Wilkes should live or die, as one person opposed the sentence. Special Judge Carl Heldt from Clark Circuit Court sentenced him to death, but Wilkes argued the trial court should have considered the jury's inability to arrive at a unanimous sentencing recommendation as a mitigating factor.

A divided state Supreme Court had previously held in Roche v. State, 596 N.E.2d 896 (Ind. 1992), that no meaning should be interpreted from a jury's failure to reach a recommendation, nor should it be considered as a mitigating factor during the penalty phase. With its decision last year in Wilkes, the justices found the jury's uncertainty to be a relevant consideration rather than a mitigating factor that the trial court should consider in determining an appropriate sentence.

"We cannot say that the death sentences in this case are inappropriate. The nature of the offense is a triple murder of a mother and her two children. The murders, especially of Donna and Sydne, were committed in a particularly gruesome manner. We have upheld death sentences in similar cases," Justice Theodore R. Boehm wrote for the court at the time.

Now that the federal justices have denied Wilkes’ request, his post-conviction timetable begins with a hearing set for next summer and a special judge’s decision expected by August 2011. Ultimately, the Indiana Supreme Court will likely again receive the case at the post-conviction relief stage and eventually may have to decide when to set an execution date.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT