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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Jaramieharness@gmail.com Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit