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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT