Penn State Law student argues petition for writ of habeas corpus

Third-year Penn State Law student Jill Menning argued and won a court ruling on a writ of habeas corpus petition. Menning was defending a client as part of her work in Penn State Law’s Indigent Criminal Justice Practicum.

Menning and the practicum supervisors, adjunct professors Casey McClain and Richard Settgast, decided to file the writ after the client’s preliminary hearing resulted in the case being held for trial. A writ of habeas corpus argues the constitutional right violation of unlawful detention or imprisonment before a court. The writ demands that the charged person be taken before the court and that the district attorney present proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether the government entity has lawful authority to detain the person. Because of these unique circumstances, writs of habeas corpus are rare, and to argue one in court as a law student is even rarer.

“Most cases plead out, and never get to trial,” said Menning. “So, to be able to argue in court on a habeas petition as a law student is a great opportunity for me to elevate my experience in court.”

In this case, Menning argued that the court had no right to maintain charges against her client for trial. The client, a male just over the age of 21, was charged with furnishing alcohol to a minor and applied for an attorney through the Centre County Public Defender’s Office. Of the three students in the practicum, Menning was assigned to represent him.

“When you think of furnishing alcohol to a minor, you think of the stereotypical guy outside the liquor store, approached by kids to buy beer,” Menning said. “But this wasn’t the case here.”

The client was on his first date with a 20-year-old woman. He did not know she was younger than the legal drinking age. Menning explained that her client and his date were drinking alcohol in his car, the only vehicle in the parking lot of a Centre County park after the park had officially closed for the day. A police officer noticed the car, approached and questioned the couple. When the officer noticed the alcohol, he gave a preliminary breath test to Menning’s client, who was in the driver’s seat. Menning said her client was well under the legal intoxication limit. Then the officer questioned the woman, and discovered she was under the legal drinking age, and gave the client a citation for furnishing alcohol to a minor.

As part of the practicum, Menning represents indigent criminal defendants accused of misdemeanor offenses in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas under the supervision of an attorney from the Centre County Public Defender Office. Under the direction of McClain and Settgast, both assistant public defenders in Centre County, students work as a defense litigation attorney learning litigation, negotiation, and advocacy skills. This is a hands-on experience where students conduct interviews of their clients and work to best represent the client through all phases of the criminal justice process. 

“It’s been a lot of work,” Menning said. “You really get the hands on experience; we’ve been able to argue in court, negotiate with district attorneys, and interview clients, and feel supported by getting feedback from Professors Settgast and McClain.”

In February, Menning argued the preliminary hearing, which determines whether or not the case will go to trial or the charges will be dropped. On this charge, she knew the district attorney had to prove that her client had clear knowledge that his date was under 21. At this hearing, she argued that there was no clear proof, but the judge did not drop the charges.

“I felt the DA did not prove that my client knew that this woman was under the drinking age,” said Menning. “So, because the case was being held for trial without this proof, this was a violation of his constitutional rights.”

Menning drafted and filed the writ and studied precedent to argue her position in court. While she felt well-prepared, she was anxious to argue in front of the judge.

“I studied the case that set the standard for the knowledge and made sure I knew the exact language,” she said. “Then I organized my argument, and made sure to counter argue everything the DA might say, before they argued their position.”

Menning’s preparation and organization paid off, as the judge granted the petition a week later.

“I was so excited for my client and excited to call him and let him know, he doesn’t go home with a charge on his record,” she said. “And I was grateful for Professors Settgast and McClain, who helped me practice my argument, and really pushed me on counter issues to make sure I knew my argument and nothing would come as a surprise.”

“Casey and I are both very proud of the work she put in to this case, and she was exceedingly well prepared,” Settgast said. “Even though she lost the preliminary hearing, she had her client's trust throughout the case and stuck to her own opinion on the law even after the assistant district attorney threatened to up the charges against her client. The level of professionalism that Ms. Menning displayed reflects the quality of law students at Penn State that participate in the clinical programs."

Click to read the Judge Jonathan D. Grine's full opinion.