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. Based on several recent Indy Star articles, I would agree that being a case worker would be really hard. You would see the worst of humanity on a daily basis; and when things go wrong guess who gets blamed??!! Not biological parent!! Best of luck to those who entered that line of work.

  2. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  3. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  4. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  5. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

ADVERTISEMENT