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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT