State of Indiana vs. I.T. - 1/30/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  January 30, 2013 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m. 20A03-1202-JV-76. In April 2006, I.T. was adjudicated a delinquent child for committing an act that would constitute class B felony child molesting if committed by an adult. As part of its dispositional order, the juvenile court ordered I.T. to participate in an outpatient juvenile sex-offender treatment program and to undergo polygraph examinations to ensure his compliance with the rules of probation and the treatment program. During one of these polygraph examinations, I.T. admitted to sexually abusing two additional children. Based on these disclosures, police conducted an investigation and obtained a statement from one of the alleged victims implicating I.T. Police also conducted an interview of I.T., during which I.T. again confessed. Based on this information, the State filed an additional delinquency petition against I.T. alleging that he had committed acts that would be class B and class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult.
I.T. successfully moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that his statements during the polygraph examination and all evidence derived there from were inadmissible. The State now appeals.

Back to Events
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT