ILNews

Appellate court travels for arguments

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As part of its “Appeals on Wheels” initiative, the Indiana Court of Appeals will hit the road this week to hear arguments.

On Tuesday, two panels of judges will hear arguments in locations outside of the Court of Appeals courtroom, although one panel won’t have to travel far. Chief Judge John Baker and Judges Edward Najam Jr. and Nancy Vaidik will hear the case of R.J.H. v. State of Indiana, No. 71A03-1003-JV-206, in the Indiana Supreme Court courtroom. The case originates out of St. Joseph Probate Court, in which R.J.H. argues the court abused its discretion by awarding custody of him to the Department of Correction. Arguments begin at 10:30 a.m. and will be webcast live.

Judges James Kirsch, Margret Robb and Paul Mathias will be in northwestern Indiana hearing arguments in Jamarr Da-Juan Williams v. State of Indiana, No.45A03-1001-CR-39. Jamarr Da-Juan Williams argues that the trial court committed fundamental error in refusing to instruct the jury regarding the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter. He was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, battery, and attempted battery.

Arguments begin at 1 p.m. CDT at Valparaiso High School, 2727 Campbell St., Valparaiso.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT