Joseph Peters v. State of Indiana - 2/7/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  February 7, 2013 
10:30 AM  EST

10:30 a.m. 59A01-1108-CR-330. Peters filed a motion to dismiss child molesting charges on grounds the State had failed to bring him to trial in a timely manner. The Orange Circuit Court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed on interlocutory appeal in an unpublished decision. Peters v. State, 59A01-1108-CR-330, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. Jul. 31, 2012), trans. pending. Peters has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal, asserting that the Court of Appeals erred in its analysis of his rights to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT