ILNews

SCOTUS refuses to accept two Indiana cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The nation’s highest court has refused to take two Indiana cases, including the high-profile abuse and neglect case of 3-year-old TaJanay Bailey that revealed fatal flaws in the state’s child welfare system.

An order list issued today by the Supreme Court of the United States listed dozens of cases that the justices considered in a private conference late last week. Two from Indiana were listed: the state criminal appeal of Charity E. Bailey v. Indiana, No. 10-74847, and a habeas corpus petition in Russell W. Roach v. Jeff Wrigley, Superintendent, New Castle Correctional Facility, No. 10-639.

The Bailey case stems from the November 2007 killing of TaJanay Bailey, later identified in court documents only as T.B. The child was a ward of the state Department of Child Services and had a history of neglect and placement in foster care homes when she was temporarily returned to her mother. In less than three months she was fatally beaten to death by her mother’s live-in boyfriend. He pled guilty and received a 65-year sentence. Marion Superior Judge Kurt Eisgruber in May 2009 sentenced Charity Bailey to 35 years on a plea agreement for felony neglect of a dependent resulting in death and three felony counts of neglect of a dependent.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment in March 2010, writing that the record reflected that “Bailey is a self-absorbed and self-focused individual, and we cannot say that the 35-year sentence, which was an enhancement of only five years above the advisory sentence for a class A felony, was inappropriate.”

 She asked the Indiana Supreme Court to weigh in, but in June the justices denied transfer. In November, Bailey filed a writ of certiorari with the SCOTUS. The Indiana Attorney General’s Office waived its right to respond, and the justices ultimately rejected Bailey’s petition on Friday.

Bailey is currently in the Indiana Women’s Prison and is eligible for release in March 2025, according to the state Department of Corrections offender database online.

The SCOTUS also declined to hear the Roach appeal.

Last year, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a habeas corpus petition denial by U.S. Chief Judge Richard L. Young in the Southern District of Indiana. Roach was convicted of murder in 1995 and the state courts have since upheld his sentences and denied any post-conviction relief. This paved the way for Roach’s federal claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal, evidence insufficiency on his intent to kill, evidence and witness inadequacies at trial, and the lack of appellate review.

In December 2009, Chief Judge Young ordered that Roach wasn’t entitled to any relief, and the 7th Circuit upheld that decision in July by denying a request for a certificate of appealability. He filed a writ of certiorari in November and the state waived its right to respond before the SCOTUS denied the case on Friday.

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