Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The government cannot pursue the death penalty in the case of a man accused of killing a Terre Haute police officer in 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled, shutting down the plaintiff’s attempt to change course over three years after taking the death penalty off the table.
U.S. District Court Judge James Patrick Hanlon stated in a Feb. 17 order that the doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes the government from pursuing capital punishment, arguing the doctrine “protect[s] the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749–50 (2001); see Spaine v. Community Contacts, Inc., 756 F.3d 542, 547 (7th Cir. 2014); Levinson v. United States, 969 F.2d 260, 265 (7th Cir. 1992).
Attorneys for defendant Shane Meehan did not immediately respond to The Indiana Lawyer’s request for comment.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office told The Indiana Lawyer on Thursday that the office does not comment on pending litigation.
Meehan is accused of shooting and killing FBI Task Force Officer Greg Ferency outside the FBI’s Terre Haute office in July 2021.
In January 2022, the United States charged Meehan with premeditated murder of a federal officer, attempted arson of federal property, and use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence causing death. The first and third counts carry death penalty sentences.
In July 2022, after several months of investigating, the government filed its notice stating it would not seek the death penalty in Meehan’s case.
However, in November 2025, the government changed course, filing an intent to seek the death penalty on Nov. 18.
The government’s decision to pursue capital punishment came several months after President Donald Trump issued an executive order stating the government should pursue the death penalty in every federal capital case involving the murder of a law enforcement officer.
Hanlon’s order addresses the administration’s order.
“While the Executive Branch has extremely broad discretion to decide whether and when to seek the death penalty, it may not do so here where more than three years have passed since the government represented to the Court and defense counsel that it had unequivocally decided that it would not seek the death penalty,” Judge Hanlon wrote.
On Nov. 21, 2025, Meehan filed a motion to strike the government’s death penalty pursuit, arguing in part that the government cannot lawfully backtrack after filing formal notice that it wouldn’t pursue the death penalty and that defense counsel has already strategized as if this were a no-death penalty case.
In support of his argument that the doctrine of judicial estoppel applies in this case, Hanlon states that, while the doctrine can’t be reduced to a precise formula, it typically focuses on several factors:
- that a party’s later position must be inconsistent with its earlier position
- that courts regularly inquire whether a party has persuaded a court to accept that earlier decision, and
- that a party would impose unfair detriment on the opposing party in seeking the inconsistent position.
Hanlon argues that all three factors are applicable in this case, first stating how carefully the government investigated the circumstances of the case to reach the conclusion that the death penalty would not be pursued.
“And the government was not merely correcting some ‘inadvertence or mistake,’ Maine, 532 U.S. at 754, as the decision in July 2022 to not seek the death penalty was made deliberately after a careful, monthslong process within and among the United States Attorney’s Office and Main Justice,” Hanlon wrote.
Hanlon also wrote that, when it was determined the death penalty would not be pursued, the landscape of the case changed, and that preparation for a death penalty case is different from the preparation involved in a typical criminal trial. Meehan underwent several months of competency evaluations to determine whether he is competent to stand trial.
Hanlon states that the case is too complex and has been on the no-seek course for too long to be able to “fully, fairly, and meaningfully restore the parties to the positions they would have been in had the government never provided its ‘final’ no-seek notice,” his order reads.
The application of judicial estoppel doesn’t compromise the government’s interest in enforcing the law, Hanlon wrote, since two of Meehan’s charges carry a mandatory life sentence. Hanlon’s decision also doesn’t address whether the government can ever seek the penalty after originally stating it wouldn’t.
“[the Court] simply observe[s] that the factors above firmly tip the balance of equities in favor of barring” the government from reversing its decision not to seek the death penalty,” Hanlon wrote, again citing the above case, New Hampshire v. Maine.
The case is USA v. Shane M. Meehan, 2:22-cr-00002-JPH-CMM.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.