McLynnerd Bond, Jr. v. State of Indiana - 2/6/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  February 6, 2014 
9:00 AM  EST

McLynnerd Bond, Jr. v. State of Indiana
9 a.m. No. 45S03-1309-CR-597. While Bond was under arrest on an unrelated charge, a Gary police detective questioned Bond about a murder. The detective told Bond it was unlikely anyone from his “part of the hood” would be on his jury. During the interview, Bond confessed to the murder. Prior to trial on the murder charge, Bond moved to suppress the interview contending that his confession had been involuntary. The Lake Superior Court “strongly discouraged” police from telling defendants they could not receive a fair and impartial jury due to location of the courthouse, but denied the motion to suppress. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed in Bond v. State, No. 45A03-1205-CR-212 (Ind. Ct. App. May 31, 2013) (NFP mem. dec.), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT