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

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT