ILNews

Blogger Brewington seeks rehearing, wants Rush to recuse

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A blogger whose intimidation convictions arising from a child-custody dispute were affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court is seeking a rehearing in an effort to vacate his convictions.

Representing himself, Daniel Brewington also asks that Justice Loretta Rush disqualify from the case that drew national attention for its First Amendment implications. Brewington’s pro se motions were filed with the Indiana Supreme Court earlier this month, according to the docket in Daniel Brewington v. State, 15S01-1405-CR-309.

Last month, justices unanimously affirmed Brewington’s convictions for intimidation of a judge and obstruction of justice but stipulated the ruling did not implicate First Amendment freedom of speech protections.

Rush authored the 35-page opinion that held Brewington’s “statements and conduct, understood in their full context, clearly were meant to imply credible threats to the victims’ safety.

Brewington argues the state tried and convicted him for constitutionally protected speech and failed to provide examples of his conduct that constituted a threat. He argues structural and fundamental error in a ruling “replete with factual inaccuracies and confusion of events in time; many of which are a product of the fouled trial process.”

In asking for Rush’s recusal, Brewington notes a 1998 home invasion in which Rush and her husband were victimized by a former ward of the state to whom Rush years earlier had been a guardian ad litem as giving rise to questions about her ability to be impartial. Brewington also argues Rush’s professional relationship with judges who are parties in the case merit her recusal.

“Due to the numerous errors in the trial record, which confused even this Court, reliance on false pretense of fear to define threats; and the structural, fundamental, gross, and/or plain errors that deprived Brewington of nearly every constitutional protection during his criminal case, the Court should grant rehearing and reverse all convictions or remand the matter back for a new trial,” Brewington concludes his rehearing petition.


 

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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT