Gingerich reversal won’t get high court review

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A boy believed to be the youngest person convicted as an adult in Indiana will get a fresh start in juvenile court after the Indiana Supreme Court let stand a reversal of his conviction.

The justices on Thursday unanimously denied transfer asked for by the state in the case of Paul Henry Gingerich, who was 12 at the time he and an older boy shot and killed a Kosciusko County man. The Indiana Court of Appeals in December threw out the conviction for Gingerich, now 15.

“I’m very happy with this ruling,” Gingerich attorney Monica Foster of Indianapolis said Friday. “We came out of the appellate process 8-0, and that’s good momentum heading back to Kosciusko County.” Foster said she will continue to represent Gingerich pro bono in the new juvenile proceeding.

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

Kosciusko Circuit Judge Rex Reed ordered Gingerich sent to adult prison upon his conviction, but the Department of Correction used its discretion to instead send him to the Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility because of his size. Gingerich was 5-feet, 2-inches tall and weighed about 80 pounds at the time of his incarceration.

The case drew international attention because of Gingerich’s age and perceived injustice because, among other things, his defenders were allowed only five days to prepare for a waiver hearing from juvenile court.

“I think justice was done,” Foster said. “I think the appellate court worked very hard to resolve some difficult issues. … It’s time to do this thing right.”

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller appealed the Court of Appeals’ reversal, and in a statement his office said it would aggressively support the new prosecution.

“Having exhausted the appellate remedies, we will continue to work with the Kosciusko County Prosecutor's Office in this difficult matter involving the violent taking of a human life by a juvenile,” said Bryan Corbin, spokesman for the AG’s office. “This offender’s age at the time of the crime prompted a necessary discussion about the rights of the accused, but no one should lose sight of the fact that there is still a deceased victim and the rights of crime victims also should be respected and protected.”

Read more about the Gingerich case in Indiana Lawyer.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues