ILNews

SCOTUS rejects two Indiana cases

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States has declined to get involved in two appeals out of Indiana, upholding federal or state rulings on both cases.

At its private conference on Friday, the nation’s highest court discussed and granted certiorari to six cases from across the country, but none from Indiana. A 16-page order list issued by the court today includes two Indiana cases – one prisoner habeas corpus request from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and one LaPorte County murder case that went as high as the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Justices denied the 7th Circuit case of Courtney C. Dixie v. Bill K. Wilson, Superintendent of the Indiana State Prison, No. 10-5846. The request filed in August stems from a May decision by a three-judge appellate panel that denied the man’s petition for habeas corpus and an application for a certificate of appealability, which found no substantial showing of constitutional rights violations. U.S. Judge Theresa Springmann in the Northern District of Indiana had denied his request for a certificate of appealability earlier in the year, after denying Dixie’s habeas corpus petition late last year in Dixie v. Wilson, No. 3:07-CV-31. This federal litigation stemmed from Dixie’s Allen County murder convictions and 95-year sentence that the state Supreme Court upheld 10 years ago.

A second case included on the SCOTUS order list is Jack Jervis v. Indiana, No. 10-5854, which arises out of the LaPorte Superior Court. In November 2009, the state’s second-highest appellate court upheld a trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance claims relating to his 2001 murder conviction. The Indiana Supreme Court in April denied transfer, but the decision was 3-2 with Justices Frank Sullivan and Theodore Boehm voting to grant transfer. Attorneys filed a writ of certiorari with the SCOTUS in July, and the justices have now denied that request.
 

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