ILNews

  • Home

IBA: Go West, IndyBar! Go West! Quality CLE & Networking Await You

From IBA
October 10, 2012
Keywords
Bar Associations/Foundations, Indianapolis Bar Association
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

By The Hon. Cale Bradford, Indiana Court of Appeals

Dear Fellow IndyBar Members:

It is with great pleasure that I will host this year’s IndyBar Destination CLE, taking place in Sedona, Arizona from November 15 to November 17. To entice your attendance, this year’s CLE will be held at the Enchantment Resort & Mii amo Spa, nestled into the red rock wall of Sedona’s Boynton Canyon. Your Indianapolis Bar Association has worked tirelessly to assemble programming, speakers and events to make this one of the most valuable and memorable seminars and networking experiences of your career.

Along with Scott Newman, former Marion County Prosecutor and Director of Strand Laboratories, I am also honored to be presenting an educational session in Sedona we have dubbed, “Me and You and Rule 702.”

For the past few years, Scott and I have taught a class of up-and-coming expert witnesses at IUPUI, focusing on the admission of expert testimony and expert testimony techniques. As a spinoff of our research and teaching, we have developed a segment for you that tracks the development of law for the admission of expert testimony—from Frye to Federal Rule 702, through Daubert, and on to Kuhmo Tire. We will cover recent amendments to Rule 702 as well as provide a thorough discussion of Indiana Rule of Evidence 702 and the recent Indiana Supreme Court case, Turner v. State.

Is Indiana a Daubert state or not a Daubert state? What are the most important things my expert witness needs to remember while testifying? For answers to these questions and more, it’s time to “get back on the road again” and join the IndyBar in Sedona, Arizona. Great programming and camaraderie await you in November. I hope to see you there!•
 

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
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. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT