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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT