The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with a defendant that his due process rights were denied when his participation in a
drug court program was ended without giving him notice of a hearing, or allowing him to present evidence and cross-examine
witnesses.
Even the state conceded that Robert L. Gosha was denied his right to due process and believed he should have a new hearing.
In Robert
L. Gosha v. State of Indiana, No. 48A02-0912-CR-1210, as part of his probation violation, Gosha was referred to drug
court. Sanctions would be stayed if he successfully completed the program. After being admitted, he was allegedly found with
drugs and paraphernalia in his home.
The drug court held a hearing without notice and without any evidence presented, and terminated Gosha’s participation
in the program. The trial court also denied Gosha’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the ending of his participation
and Gosha’s motion to correct error.
Finding Hopper v. State, 546 N.E.2d 106 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989), to be instructive, the Court of Appeals ruled that
the due process rights afforded a defendant in probation revocation hearings are now required for defendants participating
in a drug court program. Defendants should receive written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence, a
chance to be heard and present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and have a neutral and detached hearing body.
The drug court is to conduct an evidentiary hearing to allow Gosha written notice of the violations, and the ability to present
evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The judges also noted that a defendant may waive his right to procedural due process,
but Gosha didn’t knowingly waive that right.














I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.