SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – A pending U.S. Supreme Court ruling could impact a South Dakota case that shocked the Sioux Falls community in 2016.

This month, the high court justices heard arguments in Kahler v. Kansas, a case that could determine the constitutionality of the insanity defense.

South Dakota lawmakers have considered but rejected legislation to exempt people with mental illness from the death penalty.

Aya Gruber, a professor of criminal law at the University of Colorado, says the Supreme Court has so far relied on a "shock to the conscience" doctrine as grounds for a death sentence.

"Is it possible that a state can go ahead and punish a severely mentally ill person, the same way that they would punish a completely sane person?” Gruber questions. “Or would that be such a grossly disproportionate punishment that it would shock the conscience?"

A Sioux Falls man eligible for the death penalty awaits trial. In 2016, 24-year-old Heath Otto was charged with killing his mother and nephew, and two counts of first-degree murder make him eligible for the death penalty. His defense lawyers later hired experts who diagnosed Otto with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder.

In the case before the Supreme Court, James Kahler was convicted and the death sentence was recommended for fatally shooting his ex-wife, her mother and his two daughters. He appealed, claiming his constitutional rights were violated by not being allowed to present an insanity defense.

Gruber notes that insanity is argued in very few cases.

"And of those cases, they're very rarely successful,” she states. “So, this is not like a defense that people are using all the time – this is a rarely used, rarely successful defense."

In death penalty cases, South Dakota currently relies on the M'Naghten Rule, meaning the burden of proof for insanity is on the defendant.

Capital punishment cases typically cost 10 times more than a first-degree murder case, or an average of $1 million more per case than life imprisonment.


get more stories like this via email

A set of controversial reforms to Illinois' cash bail system went into effect this week, changing a decades-old system of holding people in jail until their trial begins when they can't afford to pay bail.

Backers of the change hope it will eliminate a hardship which has fallen primarily on marginalized communities. Social justice groups, some elected officials and others have hailed the Pretrial Fairness Act as a breakthrough.

Sen. Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, president of the Senate, said it should help thousands of people who often lost their jobs, housing and even custody of children because they couldn't afford bail.

"Risk-based detention takes effect, people who -- I will remind you, are considered innocent in the eyes of the law -- will now forfeit their freedom based on the threat they pose," Harmon explained. "They will not forfeit their freedom because they lack the cash to buy it."

Opponents of the act, including prosecutors and other law enforcement officials, warned it could put dangerous criminals back on the street. The new law gives judges more latitude to look at a suspect's background and other factors to consider their likelihood of committing more crimes if they return to the community.

Implementation of the act was delayed several months by a court challenge, which was recently resolved. Under the previous system, thousands of people faced financial and family consequences when they could not afford to pay for their release from jail.

Rep. Chris Welch, D-Westchester, Speaker of the House, predicted the measure will help keep families together.

"Today is the day that we stop criminalizing poverty," Welch emphasized. "Today is the day we end a system that keeps you in jail solely because you lack resources."

The Pretrial Fairness Act is part of a sweeping package of criminal justice reforms approved by the Illinois General Assembly in 2021. The law contains a number of changes affecting policing and the court system, including pretrial detention and bail, sentencing and corrections.


get more stories like this via email

By Mark Puente for The Marshall Project.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for Ohio News Connection reporting for the Marshall Project-Public News Service Collaboration

Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze violated court rules when she steered a contentious but lucrative divorce case involving a longtime friend to her own docket, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled.

The ruling bars Celebrezze from overseeing the case, in which she has faced numerous bias allegations from attorneys for Jason Jardine, a Strongsville businessman who is getting divorced. The allegations raised questions about the friendship between Celebrezze and receiver Mark Dottore.

Dottore is the judge’s lifelong family friend, who has been paid more than $500,000 in fees since 2017 for working as a court-appointed receiver in divorce cases in Celebrezze’s courtroom.

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy’s decision permanently removes Celebrezze from the divorce case of Jardine. It does not yet affect Dottore’s assignment as receiver.

Kennedy didn’t consider Jardine’s bias allegations. Instead, the judge found the point moot because Celebrezze violated court policy when she unilaterally moved Jardine’s case to her docket after another judge recused herself.

Kennedy disqualified Celebrezze to avoid an appearance of impropriety, the ruling states.

“Judge Celebrezze was not randomly assigned to Jardine’s case. The failure to randomly assign the case was in violation of the local rules,” Kennedy wrote in her ruling released Friday.

“Therefore, to allay any concerns about the integrity of the underlying case, and to ensure to the parties and the public the unquestioned neutrality of an impartial judge, Judge Celebrezze is disqualified.”

Celebrezze declined to comment. The Jardine case, according to the court’s online docket, has been reassigned to Judge Diane Palos, who joined the court in 2009.

In a written response to the allegations seeking her removal, Celebrezze said that it was her practice to reassign complex and contentious cases to herself. Kennedy balked at the claim.

“Each judge of that court is presumed competent to handle any assigned case, even complex and contentious matters,” Kennedy wrote.

“Regardless of Judge Celebrezze’ s intention, the purpose of randomly reassigning cases after one judge recuses is defeated when the administrative judge handpicks a case to keep for herself.”

Kennedy also ruled that Judge Tonya Jones violated local rules when she recused herself from Jardine’s case in August 2022 and reassigned the case to Celebrezze.

Jones stepped aside because “her former staff attorney left employment with the court and accepted employment with” Jardine’s attorney, the court previously said.

“Judge Jones was without authority to issue an order recusing from the case and reassigning the matter to Judge Celebrezze,” Kennedy wrote.

Jones also declined to comment.

Meanwhile, the controversy around Celebrezze and Dottore has widened.

Georgeanna Semary, Celebrezze’s judicial assistant since 2009, contends she was transferred out of the judge’s office in April and forced to take a $20,000 pay cut after she allowed The Marshall Project - Cleveland to review public records involving Dottore or his company, court records show.

Semary provided a reporter with copies of billing invoices from Dottore’s firm contained in the public file.

After the demotion and pay cut, Semary retained the Chandra Law Firm, which specializes in civil rights cases. In anticipation of a lawsuit, Chandra Law attorneys earlier this month requested copies of court policies, emails, pay records and other documents to better understand why Semary was demoted after The Marshall Project - Cleveland published a story about Celebrezze.

“This should also include any documents that reflect why Ms. Semary’s job was changed on or about the day that The Marshall Project published an article about Judge Celebrezze,” attorney Subodh Chandra wrote in a request to the court

“If Ms. Semary did something wrong that merited adverse actions against her, we expect to receive the records that document that.”

Earlier this summer, The Marshall Project - Cleveland reported that the volume of work Celebrezze gave to Dottore raises questions over whether the judge usurped case assignment policy to drive lucrative cases to her friend.

The Marshall Project - Cleveland noted that the court’s rules state: “When it is necessary for a case already assigned to a judge to be reassigned due to a recusal, the administrative judge will reassign a judge, at random, and record the reassignment on the docket.”

Additionally, three of the court’s other judges each told The Marshall Project - Cleveland that they have never seen the need to appoint receivers in divorce cases.

In complex divorce cases, judges can appoint receivers — often charging couples thousands of dollars — to act as neutral parties to control marital property, including real estate, cash and businesses. Receivers have the sole authority to manage the businesses and assets at their discretion throughout the litigation.

Kennedy temporarily removed Celebrezze from the Jardine divorce case on May 18 after Jardine’s attorneys filed an affidavit of disqualification to remove her from the case.

Celebrezze has known Mark Dottore most of her life. Dottore has served as a receiver on cases in her courtroom, as well as many other area judges, on numerous occasions. He also served as campaign treasurer when she ran successfully for her judgeship in 2008. Her campaign headquarters is listed under his business address.

Government watchdogs have suggested that the close relationship raises questions about transparency in Celebrezze’s courtroom and whether she rules without bias in cases involving Dottore and his company.

Kennedy’s ruling marks at least the second time since 2009 that Celebrezze has been removed from a divorce case in which Dottore was assigned as receiver.

Celebrezze made headlines that year after the Ohio Supreme Court ordered her removal from a divorce case involving Marc Strauss, a wealthy real estate developer. Dottore was also the receiver in the case and cited as a reason to disqualify Celebrezze, The Plain Dealer reported in May 2009.


Mark Puente wrote this article for The Marshall Project.

This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

A new bill in Congress would ensure assistance and resources for people with disabilities who are in jail or prison. It could have a major effect in Mississippi, with one of the world's highest incarceration rates.

The advocacy group Disability Rights Mississippi is already pursuing a lawsuit against the state's corrections department, citing concerns ranging from accessibility to insufficient medical and mental health care.

Polly Tribble, executive director of the group, said Congress could help ensure people with disabilities do not experience health setbacks during their time behind bars.

"It will just allow us to expand our work," Tribble pointed out. "We want to make sure that the people who are in the jails get the services they need, so that they once they get out, they don't go back to prison, and that they can be a productive member of society."

The group's most recent report on living conditions in Mississippi prisons said those who use a wheelchair often are unable to access critical areas, from cafeterias to showers, to nurses' stations to receive medication. The bill promotes training and advocacy for safe and humane conditions for people in jails and prisons.

Tribble explained the prisoners often face challenges getting their medical needs addressed.

"When somebody with a disability -- and let's say, for instance, a mental health issue -- that when they go into the prison or county jail system, that their prognosis is poor, and that they do not get the treatment and assistance they need," Tribble outlined.

Jane Walton, the group's communications director, added passage of the Protection and Advocacy for Criminal Legal Services Act could enhance her group's ability to advocate for the rights of this jail and prison population.

"In Mississippi, just because of a lack of resources, I think we see jails and prisons almost being used as a proxy for mental health care," Walton asserted. "Some people who wind up in a jail or prison probably should have wound up getting treatment. So, it's unfortunate. If they wind up in the system, the odds of them getting the treatment that they need drop."

The bill would allocate $7 million for fiscal year 2024, and with incremental increases to meet these needs through 2028.


get more stories like this via email