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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT