Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Edward Spreitzer v. Howard A. Peters, Iii, Director, Illinois Department of Corrections and Richard B. Gramley, Warden, Pontiac Correctional Center
Citations: 127 F.3d 551; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 25617; 1997 WL 589187Docket: 96-1467, 96-1520
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; September 15, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
In the case of Edward Spreitzer v. Howard A. Peters, III, and Richard B. Gramley, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued an order regarding Spreitzer's habeas corpus petition. The Court previously reversed the district court's grant of habeas corpus concerning sentencing and upheld the denial of issues raised by Spreitzer on cross-appeal, stating that the death sentence should be reinstated. Spreitzer requested the Court to remand the case to the district court for consideration of unresolved issues following the adverse ruling. The Court denied Spreitzer's Petition for Rehearing and his request for en banc consideration. On August 15, 1997, Spreitzer filed a motion for clarification, reiterating the desire for remand to address unresolved claims. The Court referenced a precedent in Stewart v. Peters, emphasizing that it is preferable for judges to rule on all grounds presented in habeas corpus death penalty cases to expedite appellate review. Although the parties had not initially raised the remand issue, it was later introduced during the rehearing process, leading the Court to modify its decision in that case to allow for remand. In line with the Stewart precedent, the Court granted Spreitzer's motion for clarification, modifying its earlier opinion to remand the case to the district court for further proceedings. The reinstatement of Spreitzer's death sentence was affirmed, to remain in effect while the district court resolves any remaining issues. The mandate to proceed was issued immediately.