Loren Fry v. State of Indiana - 10/11/12

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  October 11, 2012 
9:45 AM  EST

9:45 a.m. 09S00-1205-CR-361. Appellant Loren Fry was charged with murder and requested bail. Article 1, Section 17 of the state constitution provides that murder is not a bailable offense “when the proof is evident, or the presumption strong.” Indiana Code section 35-38-8-2(b) states that the defendant has the burden of proof that he should be admitted to bail. Fry sought a declaratory judgment that the statute is unconstitutional because it removed the presumption that he was innocent and entitled to bail and put the burden of proof on him. The trial court ordered the State to first show that the proof was evident, and then Fry would have the burden to convince the court that he should be admitted to bail. The trial court concluded that to the extent the statute conflicted with this procedure, the statute violates the state constitution. The trial court denied bail. This case was docketed as a direct appeal.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT