ILNews

Test run for SCOTUS arguments

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
An Indiana case goes up to the U.S. Supreme Court in the final week of March to determine whether a man who's been found competent to stand trial is competent to represent himself in those court proceedings.

Before that happens, though, the defense team representing the Indianapolis man is at the University of Illinois College of Law in Chicago getting a test run today in a mock argument of Indiana v. Ahmad Edwards, No. 07-208, which will go before the nation's highest court on March 26.

The case poses a question of whether states may adopt a higher standard for measuring competency to represent oneself at trial than for measuring competency to stand trial. It comes from a criminal case out of Indianapolis in 1999, which resulted in years of litigation before the Indiana Supreme Court decided in May 2007 that Edwards had a right to represent himself at a new trial. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which accepted the case late last year and is now being fully briefed.

"This is a pretty significant case that's not only interesting, but it really matters," said law professor Andrew Leipold, the director of the college's criminal law and procedure program. "This is a test drive in front of our faculty."

Washington, D.C.-based attorney Mark Stancil, who's arguing before the nine justices; and Michael R. Fisher with the Marion County Public Defender Agency's appellate division, who handled the case at the state level, will both participate in the moot court setting.

Stancil's brother, who teaches at the school, is the Illinois college's connection to the Indiana case. Faculty participating in the mock argument scheduled to start at 3 p.m. Central (4 p.m. Eastern) today include Leipold, professor and criminal defense attorney Steven Beckett, professor and constitutional law expert Larry Solum, and professor and legal historian Bruce Smith.

That panel will ask questions and try to replicate what they believe justices will ask later this month, Leipold said.

"We will press hard on possible weaknesses and figure out ways to help (Stancil) make his points," Leipold said.
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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT