Juan M. Garrett v. State of Indiana - 12/20/12

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  December 20, 2012 
9:00 AM  EST

9 a.m. 49S04-1207-PC-431. Garrett was charged with two counts of rape and other offenses. A jury found him not guilty on Count 1, but it could not reach a verdict on Count 2. Count 2 was retried to the bench, and the trial court found him guilty. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in Garrett v. State, No. 49A02-0807-CR-609, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. In post-conviction proceedings, Garrett contended trial and appellate counsel had been ineffective in not arguing that the retrial on the second rape charge violated his federal and state constitutional protections against double jeopardy. The Marion Superior Court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

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