ILNews

High-profile federal trials slated for early 2009

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The first half of the year is shaping up to be a time of high-profile trials for Indiana's federal courts.

The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana's first-ever federal death-penalty trial is slated for March. In May, a major energy company is expected to go through its second liability trial on clean-air violations while a former mayor is set to be tried on civil racketeering charges.

A capital trial is set to begin March 30 before Judge Richard Young in Evansville in the case of U.S.A. v. Jarvis Brown, No. 3:06-cr-00014. Brown faces execution for being part of a drug-trafficking conspiracy that resulted in four murders and eight people being shot in Indianapolis and Evansville several years ago.

Late last week, U.S. District Judge Larry McKinney in Indianapolis set May 11 to begin the nine-day trial in U.S.A., et al. v. Cinergy Corp., et al., No. 1:99-cv-1693, which would be the second trial within a year. In December, Judge McKinney determined that the original two-week liability trial in May 2008 - the nation's first to go before a jury on the issue of whether slight modifications at coal-fired power plants triggered the need for new pollution control equipment - was tainted because of potential attorney and witness misconduct. The judge ultimately opted not to sanction the lawyers involved, but he upheld his decision to set aside the original jury verdict finding that Cinergy had violated the U.S. Clean Air Act at its Wabash plant in Terre Haute but not at four other plants.

A first remedy trial happened earlier this month, but the discovery and remaining remedy aspects are stayed until after the second trial is complete.

That comes just two weeks before State v. Pastrick, et al., No. 3:04-cv-00506, is set to begin in the Northern District of Indiana. Former East Chicago Mayor Robert Pastrick and top mayoral aides James Fife and Timothy Raykovich face federal racketeering charges in that case. They are the only remaining defendants from an original 26 named in the case accusing high-ranking city officials of illegally using public money to pave sidewalks and other work in order to influence votes during the 1999 Democratic primary election. Senior Judge James Moody in Hammond on Friday set May 26 to begin the trial, which was postponed from January.

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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  4. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  5. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

ADVERTISEMENT