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.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues