Jerry Smith v. State of Indiana - 7/10/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  July 10, 2013 
10:30 AM  EST

10:30 a.m. 15A05-1208-CR-411 and 24A01-1210-CR-469. On December 21, 2010, Jerry A. Smith was charged in state court in Franklin County, Indiana, with five counts of unlawful acts related to offer or sale of a security, each as a Class C felony; five counts of broker-dealer registration required, each as a Class C felony; nine counts of securities fraud, each as a Class C felony; and six counts of securities fraud, each as a Class B felony.  On June 2, 2011, Smith was charged in state court in Dearborn County, Indiana with three counts of unlawful acts related to offer or sale of security, each as a Class C felony; three counts of broker-dealer registration required, each as a Class C felony; nine counts of securities fraud, each as a Class C felony; and three counts of theft, each as a Class D felony.

Smith pleaded guilty on June 12, 2012, in United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, one count of obstruction, and one count of tax evasion.  After his guilty plea in federal court, Smith moved to dismiss the state-court charges filed against him in both Franklin County and Dearborn County.  The Dearborn Superior Court denied Smith’s request outright, while the Franklin Circuit Court only partially granted Smith’s request.  Smith has brought interlocutory appeals from the rulings of both trial courts, contending in each that the conduct underlying the state-court charges is the same conduct underlying the federal court charges to which he pleaded guilty and that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to dismiss all of the charges brought against him.  The State cross-appeals contending that the Franklin Circuit Court erred by partially granting Smith’s motion to dismiss.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT