ILNews

U.S. judge: Indiana Supreme Court was wrong

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge has tossed a death row inmate's capital sentence, saying the Indiana Supreme Court was wrong in ruling the man convicted of a triple murder wasn't prejudiced by having to wear a stun belt in the jury's presence.

The 26-page decision came Wednesday from the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, in John M. Stephenson v. Mark Levenhagen, No. 3:07-CV-539-TS, a case that's been ongoing with appeals in some form for more than a decade. This case has seen all levels of state and federal courts, though the Supreme Court of the United States has twice declined to intervene.

U.S. District Judge Theresa Springmann in Fort Wayne ruled the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in April 2007 was incorrect in holding that Stephenson wasn't prejudiced by his wearing a stun belt during his eight-month capital trial in 1997 in Warrick Superior Court, where he was convicted of three murders, burglary, and theft relating to a drug-ring operation.

Two published opinions come from the state's highest court in this case, all relating to Stephenson's convictions. The first was Stephenson v. State of Indiana, 742 N.E. 2d 463 (Ind. 2001), or Stephenson I, which affirmed the convictions and penalty on direct appeal; and Stephenson v. State of Indiana, 864 N.E. 2d 1022 (Ind. 2007), or Stephenson II, a post-conviction relief appeal challenging several issues including how Stephenson was forced to wear a stun belt during his capital jury trial. That latter ruling denied him relief and again upheld his sentence to die, and all five justices affirmed that penalty.

On the post-conviction relief claim, the Indiana Supreme Court had found that Stephenson's trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the belt's use during trial. But it held that Stephenson wasn't prejudiced by that deficient performance, and Judge Springmann says that was incorrect. Specifically, the justices found no evidence that the sheriff or anyone requested the stun belt's use, and that Stephenson had not presented a danger or security threat; but it still determined there was no prejudicial effect from jurors seeing that during trial.

"It is clearly erroneous because if counsel had objected, there was no legitimate basis for requiring Stephenson to wear a stun belt," Judge Springmann wrote. "Furthermore, if over objection, he had been required to do so, the Indiana Supreme Court would have had to reverse his conviction on direct appeal. It is an incorrect statement of the test for prejudice because the question is not whether the objection would have been sustained or resulted in a reversal on direct appeal."

The judge applied recent caselaw from the 7th Circuit, which last year decided Wrinkles v. Buss, 537 F. 3d 804, 823 (7th Cir. 2008), that came from Judge John D. Tinder, then in the Southern District of Indiana. He had decided that Vanderburgh County case involving in part an ineffective assistance of counsel claim pertaining to a lawyer's failure to object to the use of a stun-belt restraint during trial. The federal appellate court affirmed the decision about its use because there was a question of its visibility during trial - something that isn't an issue in Stephenson because jurors could see the stun belt. But the ruling offered relevant framework for deciding this current appeal.

"Stephenson has demonstrated that there was an unacceptable risk that impermissible factors came into play in the determination of his guilt," Judge Springmann wrote. "Therefore, he has demonstrated prejudice ... and habeas corpus must be granted. Due process mandates that John M. Stephenson is entitled to what he was denied: a trial without restraints unless the State can demonstrate a particularized justification for doing so at his retrial."

The federal judge granted Stephenson's motion for summary judgment on his stun-belt claim in the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Indiana has 120 days to file the appropriate papers to continue this case and is free to again seek the death penalty, Judge Springmann wrote.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller called the ruling "disappointing," and said a decision hasn't been made about whether to ask Judge Springmann to rehear the case or to appeal directly to the 7th Circuit.

"Stephenson was cloaked with the presumption of innocence and his wearing an electric stun belt under his clothes did not strip him of that cloak," Zoeller said. "This ruling makes it more difficult to serve the interests of justice if witnesses must testify again about events 13 years after the fact."

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