ILNews

Federal death penalty trial still possible

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The first-ever federal death penalty trial in the Southern District of Indiana may still happen, even though the defendant has signed a plea agreement in connection with a violent killing spree almost three years ago.

A plea hearing was set today for Jarvis Brown, who was one of three men charged with a series of robberies, attempted robberies, and shootings in Indianapolis and Evansville during an 18-day period in December 2005. All parties signed a plea agreement, but a courtroom deputy in U.S. District Judge Richard Young's Evansville chambers said a morning plea hearing didn't happen as planned. Though both sides have signed a plea agreement, Brown refused to sign a petition that the judge wanted on the record.

Now, the judge has given Brown until Oct. 9 to file a petition with the court. If that doesn't happen, the plea agreement will be taken off the table and a death penalty trial will be rescheduled.

Federal prosecutors indicted Brown in June 2006, showing the men during their crime spree shot 12 people - killing four and wounding eight. The U.S. Attorney's Office requested the death penalty for the trio; cases remain ongoing for co-defendants Gabriel Jordan and Teddy Weems.

The case was originally set for trial earlier this year but was repeatedly continued as plea negotiations occurred. The agreement between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Brown came Sept. 19 and would mean the Indianapolis man would likely spend the rest of his life in prison rather than being executed.

In the 12-page plea agreement, Brown agrees to plead guilty to six counts ranging from murder of a witness to prevent them from communicating with police; conspiracy to posess and distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine and marijuana; conspiracy to interfere with commerce by threats or violence; use of a firearm during a crime of violence; and drug trafficking that resulted in murder. The agreement states that Brown, who is in his late 20s, will cooperate with authorities and be subject to five life sentences and a 20-year imprisonment, all to run consecutively.

Neither the U.S. Attorney's Office nor Brown's attorneys in Evansville returned a call today from Indiana Lawyer.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT