ILNews

State's policy in court doesn't violate constitution

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state's refusal to waive jury trials in one Marion Superior Court doesn't violate the constitutional rights of the mentally ill defendants who appear in that court, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals. The defendants argued their mental illnesses may stigmatize them in the eyes of a jury so they wanted bench trials instead of jury trials.

In the consolidated interlocutory appeal of Joshua Lewis, Nashelia Avant, and Marilyn Owens v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0808-CR-757, defendants Joshua Lewis, Nashelia Avant, and Marilyn Owens, all of whom had some form of mental illness, challenged the trial court's denial of their petitions to transfer their cases out of Marion Superior Court 8 on the grounds the state's refusal to waive jury trials in that court violated the federal and state constitutions.

Class D felony cases involving defendants with mental health problems or diagnoses are often transferred to Court 8. After a series of bench trials and acquittal of multiple defendants in June 2007, the state refused to waive jury trials for Class D felony cases in Court 8.

Lewis and the others argued the state's refusal to waive jury trials compromises defense counsel's effectiveness by preventing them from making a meaningful strategic decision regarding whether to pursue a jury or bench trial. They contended they are left with a similar "hard choice" as in U.S. v. Lewis, 638 F. Supp. 573, 578 (W.D. Mich. 1986). The appellate judges disagreed, finding the defendants' right to a bench trial isn't analogous to the Lewis defendants' right to religious freedom, wrote Judge Cale Bradford. As such, there was no violation of their Sixth Amendment rights.

The Court of Appeals also didn't agree with the argument that their mental illnesses and the social stigmas that go along with them would infect a jury pool, making a bench trial necessary. The defendants claimed their mental illnesses are a reason to allow them bench trials, like the reasons mentioned in Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 36 (1965). The U.S. Supreme Court in that case didn't decide when a circumstance may arise that would make it unlikely for an impartial trial by jury because the petitioner gave no reason for wanting to forgo the jury trial other than to save time.

"But without evidence demonstrating otherwise, we cannot assume that negative public perceptions of mental illness necessarily place a mentally-ill defendant at risk or compromise his right to a fair trial when members of the public stand in his judgment," Judge Bradford wrote. "Negative public scrutiny and social ostracism, while no doubt disadvantageous in the social context, are just as likely - and perhaps more likely - to arouse compassion for a criminal defendant."

The Court of Appeals also found the state's policy of refusing to waive jury trials for mentally ill defendants in Court 8 doesn't violate their rights under the Equal Protection Clause or the privileges and immunities clause of the Indiana Constitution. Although the state's alleged policy covers people charged with D felonies who all have some link to mental illness, there was nothing to show the state's policy related to their mental illness, wrote the judge.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT