Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Legal counsel for an Indiana man on death row have petitioned for the Allen County Superior Court to throw out a two-decade-old ruling that ended the option for post-conviction relief.
Joseph Corcoran was convicted of murdering four people in Fort Wayne in 1997 and was sentenced to death in 1999.
It wasn’t until earlier this summer, in June, that Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed to schedule an execution date — after the state obtained pentobarbital, a lethal drug increasingly being used around the country to carry out death warrants. Corcoran’s execution — scheduled for Dec. 18 — would be the first in Indiana since 2009.
In the Thursday filing, Corcoran’s Indiana public defender, Amy Karozos, maintained that her client “was and continues to be severely mentally ill.”
In the early 2000s, when the time was still ripe for Corcoran to initiate post-conviction review, he refused to sign the post-conviction petition, Karozos said.
Given recent, favorable exceptions made by state supreme court justices to allow tardy petitions — along with an increasing tendency nationwide to exempt those with mental illness from the death penalty — the lawyer argued for her client’s appeal window to be reopened.
“Corcoran has repeatedly refused to act in a competent manner which resulted in lost opportunities to save his life throughout this case and permit the State to assist in his suicide,” Karozos wrote in the motion, adding later that the state should have had to litigate a post-conviction case years ago “had Corcoran’s mental illness not severely interfered with his ability to sign his post-conviction petition in a timely manner.”
“Any prejudice the State of Indiana may suffer is outweighed by the ‘injustice’ suffered by Corcoran,” she continued.
Corcoran’s attorneys seek second chance at petition
State attorneys originally offered Corcoran a life sentence if he would accept a plea or waive jury. He refused, prompting the state to file a request for the death penalty two days later, according to court records.
At sentencing, Corcoran stated that he wanted to waive all his appeals.
Indiana’s Supreme Court originally set a Sept. 9, 2003, deadline for Corcoran to sign and file his post-conviction petition, which could have removed him from death row.
Generally, post-conviction relief allows a criminal defendant to directly challenge the legality of a portion of their criminal trial, the judgment of their conviction, or the sentence they have received.
When that deadline day arrived, however, lawyers instead filed a motion asking the court to assess Corcoran’s competency based on his mental health history, a recent mental health exam, his department of correction records and observations made by his legal counsel.
Lawyers simultaneously submitted a post-conviction relief petition that lacked Corcoran’s signature.
Shortly after, the trial court struck the petition because it was not signed or verified by Corcoran by the Indiana Supreme Court’s deadline.
A post-conviction court held a hearing in October 2003 to determine whether Corcoran was incompetent to waive his appeals. Corcoran’s counsel presented three experts, including a board-certified forensic psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist, and a neuropsychologist — all testified that Corcoran was incompetent to waive his appeals, Karozos said. The judge also questioned Corcoran during those proceedings.
The post-conviction court ultimately found Corcoran was competent to waive post-conviction based on his testimony. Even so, Karozos noted that the post-conviction court still acknowledged that Corcoran “is mentally ill.”
Another appeal followed in 2004, but a year later, the Supreme Court upheld the prior ruling that Corcoran was competent, and therefore, his incomplete petition for relief would not stand.
But in February 2005, Corcoran submitted to the Indiana Supreme Court a post-conviction petition with his signature. The high court justices dismissed the petition as untimely, however.
Corcoran’s lawyers are now leaning on an Indiana trial rule — Rule 60(B) — that would allow him to reinstate a petition for post-conviction relief following the dismissals.
That rule permits a trial court to relieve a defendant from a judgment for “any reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment” that is not otherwise specifically mentioned in the rule.
To prevail, Corcoran and his legal team must demonstrate that:
- he brought his claim within a reasonable time in light of the circumstances of the case
- extraordinary or exceptional circumstances justify that relief; and
- he has alleged a meritorious claim or defense.
Looking to other cases
Karozos argued in the newest filing that Corcoran is bringing his claim to the court within a reasonable time “in light of the circumstances.”
“The legal landscape in Indiana has changed since 2003 when Corcoran’s unsigned petition was struck, and his signed petition was dismissed,” the lawyer said.
She referenced, for example, a 2021 ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court that permitted a defendant facing execution to proceed with a post-conviction filing even though he refused to verify his petition by the deadline.
In that case, Isom v. State, public defenders submitted a petition for post-conviction relief on behalf of the defendant, Kevin Isom, without his signature. Isom, of Gary, was previously convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of his wife and her two children.
The post-conviction court, acknowledging the omission, issued an order giving Isom additional time to file the missing verification page. Isom still refused to sign the petition, concluding that his attorneys “were not up to the task of representing him,” according to court documents.
Isom’s refusal to sign meant he would forfeit his post-conviction challenge.
Still, after hearing oral argument, Indiana’s Supreme Court justices ordered the trial court to accept Isom’s petition anyway. The court eventually upheld Isom’s sentence, and he remains one of eight men on death row in Indiana.
“Corcoran should be treated the same as Isom given the change in how the Indiana Supreme Court has dealt with capital defendants who do not comply with the post-conviction rules in the time prescribed by the Court’s Order,” Karozos said, emphasizing that Corcoran has brought his motion “within a reasonable amount of time, given the 2021 opinion in Isom which changed the legal landscape.”
Corcoran’s lawyers additionally pointed to a move by the Marion County prosecutor in January 2024 to withdraw a death penalty request for a defendant, Elliahs Dorsey, who killed Indianapolis police officer Breann Leath.
“Equally as important is the fact that a regional consensus has emerged against executing the severely mentally ill has occurred in the past few years,” Karozos continued. “Every other contiguous death penalty state in this area of the Midwest has banned the death penalty for the seriously mentally ill.”
Corcoran’s lawyers repeatedly insisted he is “gravely mentally ill” and has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, which they argued should further disqualify the inmate from capital punishment.
Larry Komp, lead federal attorney for Corcoran’s legal team, previously told the Indiana Capital Chronicle that a similar argument would be made in a separate clemency petition. A decision regarding the last-ditch plea will be left to Indiana’s governor.
The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.