ILNews

Gingerich reversal won’t get high court review

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will let stand the reversal of a trial court’s adult conviction and 25-year executed sentence for Paul Henry Gingerich, who was 12 at the time he and an older boy shot and killed a Kosciusko County man.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller appealed the Indiana Court of Appeals’ ruling in December that threw out Gingerich’s murder conspiracy conviction. The judges held that the Kosciusko County trial court abused its discretion in denying Gingerich a continuance of a waiver hearing from juvenile court for which his defenders had five days to prepare. The case was remanded for a new hearing in juvenile court.

Gingerich, now 15, pleaded guilty and was sentenced as an adult for his role as the younger co-defendant in the 2010 shooting death of Phillip Danner. Also convicted was Danner’s stepson, Colt Lundy, who was 15 at the time.

The case drew international attention as Gingerich was believed to be the youngest person in Indiana history to be convicted as an adult for his involvement in a killing.

The justices unanimously rejected a petition to transfer. “The court has voted on the petition. Each participating member has had the opportunity to voice that justice’s views on the case in conference with the other justices,” according to a March 7 docket entry. “The court now denies the appellee’s petition to transfer jurisdiction.”

Read more about the Gingerich case in 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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT