State renews Corcoran penalty
By Rebecca S. Green
The Journal-Gazette
SOUTH BEND – Eighteen months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court sent Joseph Corcoran’s case back to the lower courts for the second time, effectively reinstating the death penalty against him.
But a few issues remained unresolved in Indiana’s fight to execute Corcoran, 37, who killed at least four people before he turned 23.
On Thursday, in U.S. District Court in South Bend, Judge Jon E. DeGuilio heard arguments about three of the remaining issues – whether Allen Superior Court Judge Fran Gull improperly used “non-statutory” factors against Corcoran when she sentenced him to death; whether she failed to properly consider factors in his favor; and whether Indiana’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional.
DeGuilio took the matter under advisement, and when Indiana Deputy Attorney General Steve Creason reminded him that the case has been pending since 2005, he said he would rather get it right than have the attorneys get a quick ruling.
Should DeGuilio rule in favor of the state’s desire to enforce the death penalty, the courts will then likely have to consider Corcoran’s remaining claim, whether he is incompetent because of his mental illness and should be spared the death penalty.
Corcoran shot and killed his brother, James Corcoran, 30; his sister’s fiancé, Robert Scott Turner, 32; and two of his brother’s friends, Timothy G. Bricker, 30, and Douglas A. Stillwell, 30, at a Bayer Avenue home in July 1997.
Creason said in court Thursday that Corcoran, in the years since his conviction, has bragged about fatally shooting his parents with a shotgun in Steuben County in 1992, a crime for which he was charged and acquitted.
The state of Indiana can request the death penalty if a defendant is found to have committed murder with at least one “aggravating circumstance,” such as the age of the victim, multiple victims, while committing another crime, or killing a law enforcement officer.
In Corcoran’s case, Gull found that one of the aggravating circumstances existed, specifically the multiple victims. But when she sentenced Corcoran to death, she noted a number of factors against him – the innocence of the victims, the heinousness of the crime and the likelihood Corcoran would kill again.
Corcoran’s attorneys – Lawrence Komp and Alan Freedman – argued that in her first sentencing order, and another one later ordered by the higher courts, Gull improperly considered those factors in sentencing Corcoran to death.
But Creason, Indiana deputy attorney general, said Gull was right to note those in explaining her decision, not why Corcoran may have qualified for the death penalty under Indiana law. He noted an Allen Superior Court jury unanimously recommended the death penalty.
The U.S. Constitution requires trial court judges, such as Gull, to specifically review the nature of the crime and the character of the defendant in figuring out the right sentence, Creason said.
“The fact that she did that, can’t be a (constitutional) violation,” he said.
DeGuilio must also consider whether Gull failed to consider specific factors in Corcoran’s favor when she sentenced him. Corcoran’s attorneys argue that when Gull said she found factors such as Corcoran’s age and good behavior in the jail to not be “mitigating,” she must not have considered them.
“In this case the trial court didn’t listen,” Komp said. “Saying ‘it’s not mitigating’ is not considering it.”
Creason argued Gull did consider them and didn’t give them any weight.
“This is essentially an argument about semantics,” Creason said. “She listened and found it didn’t matter.”
Corcoran’s attorneys also argued that Indiana’s death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it does not differ enough from how defendants can be eligible for both the death penalty and life in prison without parole.
Creason said all the U.S. Constitution requires is that who is eligible for the death penalty – which in Indiana includes life in prison without parole – be a smaller number than those who have committed murder.
“It’s not death or nothing,” he said, adding that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found this particular argument by Corcoran’s attorneys to be frivolous.
After his conviction and death sentence in 1999, Corcoran failed to file a petition in a timely manner to have the trial court review his case, refusing to sign the paperwork because he believed he should be put to death for his crimes, court documents said.
Then in 2003, after it was determined he was a paranoid schizophrenic who understood his legal position, Gull found him capable of making the decision to refuse appeals, a decision the Indiana Supreme Court upheld.
Corcoran changed his mind in early 2005 and tried unsuccessfully to seek a trial court review of his case. He then filed a petition in federal court but changed his mind again, saying he never wanted to appeal his sentence, court documents said.
Against Corcoran’s wishes at the time, the late U.S. District Judge Allen Sharp overturned the death sentence, ruling that then-Allen County Prosecutor Robert Gevers inappropriately punished Corcoran by pursuing the death penalty against Corcoran because, as a defendant, Corcoran demanded a jury trial instead of a trial by judge.
According to Sharp, the decision violated Corcoran’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and right to have criminal charges clearly explained.
But the 7th Circuit overturned Sharp’s decision in 2008, saying it is constitutionally permissible to use threat of more serious punishment to encourage a plea.
But when the 7th Circuit issued its 2008 ruling, it dealt only with the Sixth Amendment question that Sharp had ruled on. In an October 2009 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court determined the appellate court should have addressed all of Corcoran’s claims, and it sent the case back for another ruling.
In January 2010, the 7th Circuit handed the case back to the state courts, ordering the state court to hold a resentencing hearing to correct errors it said it found in Gull’s original sentencing order. The Indiana attorney general appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case again this month.
In November 2010, the nation’s highest court said the 7th Circuit erred when it said the sentencing order violated state law, which the state’s highest courts said it did not.
Federal courts cannot review state court cases because of allegations of state law violations, only for violations of federal law, according to court documents.
http://www.journalgazette.net/articl...969/-1/LOCAL11
Bookmarks