Federal court orders release of John Myers II in Jill Behrman murder

[bwframe]

Federal court orders release of John Myers II in Jill Behrman murder, state has 120 days to retry him

...PUBLISHED: OCT 1ST, 2019 - 12:51PM (EDT)UPDATED: 22 MINUTES AGO

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. (WTHR) — A federal court has ordered the release of a man accused of killing Indiana University student Jill Behrman.

The federal court ruling vacates all the penalties for John Myers II stemming from the murder case.

He is set to be released unless the state decides to retry him in the next 120 days...

 

[MarkC]

I would strongly suspect the Indiana Attorney General is going to appeal the district judge's grant of habeas corpus to the Seventh Circuit.

 

[What's The Frequency]

Rinse and repeat. He needs to rot in jail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I just saw this on the news. Didn't hear their reasoning for doing it. I thought it was a pretty solid case against him at the time.

Edit: Sounds like his attorney screwed up.

 

[CallSign Snafu]

The case was questionable. I don't know if the guy did it or not. It did seem like they railroaded him: circumstantial evidence, defense attorney barely tried. Which even in the event someone is guilty is never okay.

 

[KellyinAvon]

We were gone from Indiana when all this happened. I can't find anything on this guy's history. The Indy Star's timeline didn't do much to explain how this guy ended up convicted 6 years after the murder. Anybody got any better Intel?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

My wife worked in the same office as Jill's dad. Not that she was best buds with the family or anything but this tore them up. This new turn will surely be a kick to the nads.

 

[chocktaw2]

I just saw this on the news. Didn't hear their reasoning for doing it. I thought it was a pretty solid case against him at the time.

Edit: Sounds like his attorney screwed up.

Due process was not afforded is what I gather.

 

[bwframe]

There are a fair amount of folks in this area that are not sold on this man being the murderer.

No direct evidence against the guy. All evidence circumstantial, as I understand it.

They needed somebody to place this evil on to. Especially after spending a fortune investigating what turned out to be bad leads.

 

[Trigger Time]

My wife worked in the same office as Jill's dad. Not that she was best buds with the family or anything but this tore them up. This new turn will surely be a kick to the nads.

It was gut wrenching as an outsider to see what that family and her/their friends went through. I cant imagine what it was like being close to the situation.
I dont know the details of this case but I hope justice is served. Of thos guy did it, i hope he is re-convicted. If someone else did it and a new trial brings forth new evidence that finds them then good. But im sorry this family will have to go through that again.

 

[Tactically Fat]

Crap like this is one of the reasons I'm leaning more and more against the Death Penalty.

The Government, at all levels, is just too incompetent. (Not to mention morally bankrupt) I don't want an incompetent morally bankrupt government entity to have the power to take life.

For it is better than 100 guilty men go free than for 1 innocent man be punished.

This case specifically? An incompetent government apparently bungled a bunch of stuff and a (potentially) innocent man has been incarcerated (during which time I'm sure he's lost everything but his physical life).

 

[MarkC]

Crap like this is one of the reasons I'm leaning more and more against the Death Penalty.

The Government, at all levels, is just too incompetent. (Not to mention morally bankrupt) I don't want an incompetent morally bankrupt government entity to have the power to take life.

For it is better than 100 guilty men go free than for 1 innocent man be punished.

This case specifically? An incompetent government apparently bungled a bunch of stuff and a (potentially) innocent man has been incarcerated (during which time I'm sure he's lost everything but his physical life).

Perhaps you should read the order. It was the defendant's hired counsel who committed errors serious enough that the federal court found it was ineffective assistance of counsel, and granted his petition for habeas corpus.

This one was not "an incompetent government" that "bungled a bunch of stuff." It was Mr. Myers' own counsel who provided the "bungled" "bunch of stuff."

The government messes up enough things; however, in this case give credit where credit is due.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Perhaps you should read the order. It was the defendant's hired counsel who committed errors serious enough that the federal court found it was ineffective assistance of counsel, and granted his petition for habeas corpus.

This one was not "an incompetent government" that "bungled a bunch of stuff." It was Mr. Myers' own counsel who provided the "bungled" "bunch of stuff."

The government messes up enough things; however, in this case give credit where credit is due.

It’s 147 pages. Is there a Cliffs notes version?

 

[bwframe]

How does it take 13 years to determine this man was not effectively represented?

Could this not have been seen and questioned at the time by all of the parties involved? Should it not be a part of all of the court's participants responsibilities to point out errors egregious enough for this?

 

[MarkC]

It’s 147 pages. Is there a Cliffs notes version?

Judge Sweeney, the US District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana, appointed in September 2018, reviewed Myers' petition for habeas corpus, alleging an ineffective assistance of his trial counsel that was so deficient that he did not get a fair trial. Judge Sweeney spent a lot of paragraphs addressing each of the allegations, turning down many of them.

However, there were sufficient deficiencies by Myers' trial counsel that could not be attributed to legitimate tactical decisions in the defense, such as making false statements during his opening and not objecting to questionable bloodhound tracking. The errors, cumulatively, were bad enough that he found Myers' had been deprived of his right to adequate representation. Habeas granted, and Myers' will be freed if the State does not elect to retry him within 120 days.

This case had been heard by the state appellate courts, which upheld the verdict and did not find that the attorney's representation was so bad as to warrant a new trial. The attorney was disciplined because of his conduct in this case, particularly charging the defendant's family after telling them he was taking it pro bono and the way he solicited the client, but not for his ineffective representation at trial. Different courts came to different opinions in what sure looks like a close case.

The State could appeal Judge Sweeney's order to the Seventh Circuit, which would likely keep Myers in state prison and take another couple of years. Or they could elect to retry him. However, given the length of time that has passed, there will probably be difficulty in the retrial. On the other hand, each side has had a run at it, and can fine tune their second try at securing a conviction or acquittal, depending, of course, on which side they're on.

 

[HoughMade]

How does it take 13 years to determine this man was not effectively represented? ...

1. Charges

2. Trial - conviction

3. Direct appeal to Indiana Court of Appeals- affirmed.

4. Motion for rehearing- denied.

5. Appeal to Ind. Sup. Ct.- trans denied (they did not hear the appeal)

6. Petition for post-conviction relief (trial court)- denied

7. Direct appeal of PCR- affirmed

8. Motion for rehearing- denied

9. Appeal to Ind. Sup. Ct of denial of PCR.- trans denied (they did not hear the appeal)

10. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus- *GRANTED

*Where we are now

 

[KellyinAvon]

Judge Sweeney, the US District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana, appointed in September 2018, reviewed Myers' petition for habeas corpus, alleging an ineffective assistance of his trial counsel that was so deficient that he did not get a fair trial. Judge Sweeney spent a lot of paragraphs addressing each of the allegations, turning down many of them.

However, there were sufficient deficiencies by Myers' trial counsel that could not be attributed to legitimate tactical decisions in the defense, such as making false statements during his opening and not objecting to questionable bloodhound tracking. The errors, cumulatively, were bad enough that he found Myers' had been deprived of his right to adequate representation. Habeas granted, and Myers' will be freed if the State does not elect to retry him within 120 days.

This case had been heard by the state appellate courts, which upheld the verdict and did not find that the attorney's representation was so bad as to warrant a new trial. The attorney was disciplined because of his conduct in this case, particularly charging the defendant's family after telling them he was taking it pro bono and the way he solicited the client, but not for his ineffective representation at trial. Different courts came to different opinions in what sure looks like a close case.

The State could appeal Judge Sweeney's order to the Seventh Circuit, which would likely keep Myers in state prison and take another couple of years. Or they could elect to retry him. However, given the length of time that has passed, there will probably be difficulty in the retrial. On the other hand, each side has had a run at it, and can fine tune their second try at securing a conviction or acquittal, depending, of course, on which side they're on.

Thanks Mark, I couldn't have made it through 147 pages. Bloodhound tracking? No objection? It was three years. That lawyer sucked.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Thanks Mark, I couldn't have made it through 147 pages. Bloodhound tracking? No objection? It was three years. That lawyer sucked.

Did he hire his own counsel, or was he appointed a "public pretender"?

 

[HoughMade]

Did he hire his own counsel, or was he appointed a "public pretender"?

The reality is- most places and in most situations, it doesn't matter.

 

[Trigger Time]

How does it take 13 years to determine this man was not effectively represented?

Could this not have been seen and questioned at the time by all of the parties involved? Should it not be a part of all of the court's participants responsibilities to point out errors egregious enough for this?

Legal system is a trainwreck