ILNews

COA: Man wasn't denied fair trial by judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a man’s attempted murder conviction, finding the trial judge did not act in a way to deny the defendant a fair trial.

Cedric Tharpe was convicted of Class A felony attempted murder after he shot at a police officer. The officer heard shots fired, saw Tharpe running and asked him to stop. Tharpe looked at the officer for a few seconds, then began firing at him with an AK-47. The officer was not seriously hurt.

Tharpe argued on appeal in Cedric Tharpe v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1101-CR-24, that Marion Superior Judge Lisa Borges’ behavior and rulings at his trial denied him the right to a fair and unbiased judge. He claimed comments Borges made during voir dire, her sustaining of certain state motions, and her facial expressions – including rolling her eyes – during the trial denied him the right to a fair trial.

“Tharpe has alleged only legally-correct adverse rulings, a single incidence of sarcasm, and inappropriate facial expressions,” wrote Judge Melissa May. “Adverse rulings, without more, do not amount to fundamental error, and the trial court admonished the jury to disregard any facial expressions made by the judge. Tharpe has not demonstrated he was denied a fair trial."

The appellate court also disagreed with Tharpe’s claim that the denial of his motion for a continuance was an abuse of discretion. Tharpe argued the denial further demonstrated the court’s impartiality and prejudiced his defense because the attorney didn’t have enough time to prepare. But by the time Tharpe’s case went to trial, he was on his fourth attorney and the trial had been continued several times. His trial attorney claimed she didn’t receive his case file until Sept. 1, 2010, and the trial was to be held Nov. 22, 2010. Citing previous caselaw, the judges found the attorney had adequate time to prepare for the trial.

The COA also found there was sufficient evidence to support Tharpe’s attempted murder conviction.

 

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT