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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT