ILNews

SCOTUS remands Indiana death penalty case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong in disposing of an Indiana man's death penalty challenges without any explanation, and should have allowed a Northern District of Indiana judge to consider those unresolved claims, the nation's highest court ruled today.

In a two-page per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and vacated the December 2008 ruling by the 7th Circuit in Joseph E. Corcoran v. Mark Levenhagen, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison, No. 08-10495, which comes out of the Northern District of Indiana after a line of litigation from the state appellate courts during the past decade.

The main issue in the case has been whether Joseph Corcoran, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, was mentally competent when he waived his right to have a trial court review his case, and whether his constitutional rights were violated when the prosecutor offered to take the death penalty off the table if Corcoran agreed to a bench trial rather than a jury trial in the 1997 shooting deaths of four people.

Allen Superior Judge Fran Gull found Corcoran competent when he decided to bypass the trial court review of his case, and the Indiana Supreme Court ultimately upheld that decision a decade ago. But Corcoran changed his mind in early 2005, and tried unsuccessfully to seek a trial court review of his case. He filed a habeas petition in federal court, but later changed his mind again, saying he never wanted to appeal his sentence.

Against Corcoran's wishes, U.S. District Judge Allen Sharp in South Bend overturned Corcoran's death sentence in April 2007 and found the prosecutor inappropriately punished the man by pursuing the death penalty after Corcoran had declined to accept a bench trial and chose to have a jury hear his case.

The District Court granted the petition and ordered the state to re-sentence him within 120 days to anything but death. On appeal, the 7th Circuit panel on Dec. 31, 2008, ruled that Corcoran's rights weren't violated and he was competent to waive his post-conviction proceedings. The court reversed the judge's granting of habeas relief, and ruled that Indiana was at liberty to reinstate the death penalty.

In recapping the appellate history, the SCOTUS order granted certiorari and held that the 7th Circuit erred in disposing of Corcoran's other claims without explanation of any sort.

"The Seventh Circuit should have permitted the District Court to consider Corcoran's unresolved challenges to his death sentence on remand, or should have itself explained why such consideration was unnecessary," the court wrote. "In its brief in opposition, the State argues that Corcoran's claims were waived, and that they were in any event frivolous, so that a remand would be wasteful. Nothing in the Seventh Circuit's opinion, however, suggests that this was the basis for that court's order that the writ be denied."

The case is now remanded to the Northern District for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT