ILNews

Anderson attorney resigns following child porn charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted the resignation of an Anderson attorney who faces federal criminal charges for possession and distribution of child pornography.

An order dated May 20 was posted by the Indiana Appellate Clerk’s Office Tuesday in the case In The Matter of Samuel C. Hasler, 48S00-DI- 276, which dismisses the ongoing disciplinary action against the longtime family law attorney who has a pending case against him in the U.S. District Court’s Southern District of Indiana.

A sole practitioner admitted to the bar in 1987, Samuel Hasler was arrested in March on two counts of distributing child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography following a joint investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and police in Carmel and Fishers. The complaint says that Hasler used a computer to distribute multiple images of child pornography through the Internet to someone in another state on Dec. 3, 2009. Then on Feb. 14, he allegedly used a computer to distribute more images of child pornography by sending them through the Internet to an undercover police officer, and the complaint also alleges Hasler kept images and videos of child pornography in his law office on an external hard drive.

Following his arrest, Hasler has been at a community confinement facility and a drug test there revealed he was positive for cocaine. As a result, the federal court on May 12 modified his conditions of release to include drug testing and treatments, if necessary. A trial date hasn’t been set and the case remains pending. If convicted, he faces between 5 and 20 years in prison for distribution and up to 10 years in prison for the possession charge. He also faces up to $250,000 in fines per count and a term of supervised release, possibly for life.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT