MichaelW.Hoskins

Michael Hoskins joined Indiana Lawyer in May 2006 and mostly covers the state and federal court systems. He’s received awards from the Indiana Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists for his work covering the state's juvenile justice system, the federal immigration court system, wrongful conviction issues, and long-running lawsuits regarding prison conditions.

He came from the Daily Journal in Johnson County, where he was a general assignment reporter covering courts and legal issues. Before moving to Indiana in 2004 from southeast Michigan, Hoskins freelanced for the Detroit Free Press and worked for the Spinal Column Newsweekly after graduating with a bachelor’s degree in journalism from Oakland University in 2001. He currently lives in Greenwood with his wife, Susanne, and volunteers with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

Recent Articles

Federal courthouse on list for closure consideration

April 25, 2012
The Terre Haute courthouse survived a shutdown list in 2006 by building a new facility.
More

Justice Frank Sullivan leaving bench to teach

April 11, 2012
Sullivan's departure marks the Indiana Supreme Court's third vacancy in two years.
More

Indiana's newest jurist

April 11, 2012
Mark Massa takes the bench on the Indiana Supreme Court April 2.
More

Appellate court dismisses small claims venue case

April 5, 2012
The Indiana Court of Appeals has determined that a small claims venue question is not on the list of authorized interlocutory appeals, so it dismissed a case arising out of southern Indiana.
More

Homeowner association has authority to decide on new home proposal

April 5, 2012
The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s ruling against two homeowners challenging their homeowners association’s interpretation of covenants on building a new home.
More

Majority reverses conviction based on meth manufacturing

April 5, 2012
A divided Indiana Court of Appeals has determined that the state can’t use the amount of manufacturing materials and empty packets of ingredients at a person’s home to prove he was dealing in that substance, without clear evidence the drug would have been produced in that amount.
More

Court preserves woman's day in court despite delays

April 5, 2012
The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a trial judge’s order to dismiss a woman’s medical malpractice case because of her failure to comply with discovery deadlines and trial rules, finding that the decision to deny her a day in court was too harsh.
More

Panel disagrees on foreclosure settlement resolution

April 5, 2012
The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that federal law and housing regulations require that deeds in lieu of foreclosure release the borrower from any mortgage obligation, and the mortgage company issuing an agreement can use that federal language in the contract.
More

Judges affirm decision in speedy trial claim

April 4, 2012
A Hendricks County judge did not err in denying a man’s motion that his criminal case be discharged because the state failed to conduct a speedy trial within one year of charges being filed, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.
More

Court rules on estate's claim against insurer

April 4, 2012
The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a judge’s ruling against a California reciprocal insurance exchange in a dispute over whether the insurer would have to pay part of a million dollar judgment.
More
View All Articles

Recent Blog Posts

Judge reflects on new position on 1-year anniversary of confirmation

November 24, 2010
7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge David F. Hamilton took a few minutes to reflect on the past year since his confirmation to the federal appellate court.
More

Guardians of freedom

November 1, 2010
Why not use the oft-misquoted Shakespeare line as a means to explain how vital the profession is for protecting our freedoms?
More

Lighter side of nominating commission

October 27, 2010
Though they were tending to an important job of choosing three finalists to possibly become the next Indiana Tax Court judge, the members of the Judicial Nominating Commission made sure to have some fun and some laughs during the interviews on Wednesday.
More

Tax Court interviews conclude; deliberations begin

October 27, 2010
The Judicial Nominating Commission wrapped up interviews just after noon, and the seven members are now deliberating on whom they will select as finalists for the Indiana Tax Court opening. The three names will be submitted to Gov. Mitch Daniels, who makes the final appointment.
More

Indiana Tax Court interviews under way

October 27, 2010
The Judicial Nominating Commission is interviewing seven semi-finalists this morning for the Indiana Tax Court opening.
More
View All Blogs
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT