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. 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