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.














Never heard of remand to another state. How often does that happen?
I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.