Indiana Appellate Court Grants New Sentencing Hearing to 17-year-old Defendant Sentenced to LWOP
Recent Cases in Law and Neuroscience, Curated by the Center for Law, Brain & Behavior and the Shen Neurolaw Lab with support from the Dana Foundation
On February 23, 2021, an Indiana Court of Appeals reversed Andrew Conley’s life sentence without parole for first-degree murder after ruling that Conley was prejudiced by his counsel’s deficient performance.
Conley was 17 years old when he turned himself in to the police for killing his 10-year-old brother, Connor, while they were wrestling. When asked about the murder, Conley stated that he did not want to kill his brother but “just couldn’t do anything to stop” and felt “stuck there watching that happen.” He was charged as an adult and sentenced to LWOP.
After his petition for postconviction relief was denied, Conley appealed, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. He asserted that defense counsel failed to fully investigate mitigating evidence and failed to properly challenge the State’s expert witness and prepare the defense’s expert witnesses.
At trial, defense called experts to testify on Conley’s mental health. Dr. Edward Conner, a clinical psychologist, diagnosed Conley with schizoaffective disorder and testified that he was in a “dissociative state” during the murder, a condition common in abused children. Conley’s teachers testified that his parents were abusive and that his actions were out of character.
The State called an expert witness who diagnosed Conley with major depressive disorder and antisocial features. However, the examination of the expert focused on psychopathic personality characteristics despite the lack of a psychopathic personality diagnosis.
Conley’s argument of ineffective assistance of counsel alleged that defense counsel failed to mention precedent establishing diminished culpability of juveniles due to the fundamental differences between the developing and adult brain. The appellate court noted that Conley’s appellate counsel, neuropsychologist Dr. George Parker, and forensic psychologist and attorney Dr. Charles Ewing, emphasized the importance of presenting juvenile case law and the science that supports reduced sentences. Conley also argued that defense counsel failed to challenge the State when it repeatedly raised psychopath characteristics during examination despite the inability to diagnose psychopathy in any patient under 18.
The appellate court found that Conley successfully demonstrated prejudice due to the trial counsel’s failure to present mitigating evidence, especially in regard to his youth. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
Citation: Conley v. State, 164 N.E.3d 787 (2021).
Keywords: Adolescent brain, LWOP, Indiana, mental health, Miller v. Alabama, ineffective assistance of counsel
This post is the 108th post as part of an ongoing Center for Law, Brain & Behavior (CLBB) series tracking the latest developments in law and neuroscience cases. To see previous posts about recent cases, see the full case archive on the CLBB website. To see updates on legal scholarship, see the Neurolaw News, hosted by the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience. This project is made possible through support of the Dana Foundation.
