ILNews

SCOTUS set to start term

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Next week will be a big one for Indiana in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The nation's highest court will hear six arguments next week, including a much-anticipated and publicized case involving Indiana's voter identification law, and another state's case that has Hoosier interest on the constitutionality of lethal injections.

On Tuesday, the justices will take on a pair of Indiana cases. The combined cases are Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, No. 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, No. 07-25, which challenge the state's two-year-old voter photo ID law that has been upheld by both U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The cases are the first scheduled that morning, which begin at 10 a.m. Arguments are expected to last about an hour.

On Monday, the SCOTUS' second case of the morning will be a Kentucky case questioning the state's use of lethal injection, and whether a three-chemical concoction used is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment. That case is Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439, and takes on an issue that has been raised frequently by Indiana death row inmates, including three in the past year who are now all dead.

Those inmates had filed federal suits challenging the state's lethal injection method, making similar cruel and unusual punishment claims. Their petitions challenged how Indiana executes death row inmates, with claims that they'd be fully conscious and in agonizing pain for the duration of the execution process. They argued that state inmates who've been executed have repeatedly failed to receive adequate anesthesia and have remained conscious during the administration of lethal drugs. Other states have halted executions to review this method.

But the suits never gained steam in District Court and are now moot on the grounds that all three are dead. David Leon Woods and Michael Lambert were executed by lethal injection last year; the third, Norman Timberlake, died from natural causes in his Michigan City cell in November while still on death row.

Aside from those cases, justices also will consider issues during the week that involve immigration and deportation, employment age discrimination, taxes and nontradable return of capital, and whether a defendant's lawyer can waive the right to a federal judge presiding over jury selection without consulting that client. While the court doesn't hold arguments Thursday or Friday, justices will meet Friday in private conference and could decide when to schedule arguments in another Indiana case it's accepted.

That case is Indiana v. Ahmad Edwards, No. 07-208, which asks whether the Sixth Amendment grants someone found competent to stand trial the right to represent himself in a criminal proceeding. In early December, the court agreed to hear that case and it has tentatively set arguments for March, though a docket date hasn't yet been set.

The Supreme Court's arguments are not televised or broadcast live, but coverage of can be found online on the Indiana Lawyer Web site at www.theindianalawyer.com, as well as in the Indiana Lawyer Daily and print editions of the newspaper.
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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT