ILNews

Indecision over peremptory challenge waives defendant’s ability to appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A defense counsel’s courtroom debate over how to use his final peremptory strike prohibited the defendant from appealing the trial court decision to retain a juror who raised concerns about impartiality.

Gary Oswalt appealed his convictions and aggregate 84-year sentence for two counts of child molesting as Class A felonies, child solicitation as a Class D felony, and five counts of possession of child pornography as Class D felonies.  

Oswalt argued the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to remove Juror No. 28 for cause after the defense had exhausted its peremptory strikes. He maintained that juror should have been removed because during questioning the juror told the court he could not be fair and was not comfortable hearing the case.

The state countered Oswalt had not used all his peremptory challenges when the court denied his request to strike Juror No. 28. After the court denied Oswalt’s counsel’s motion to strike, the attorney had an audible conversation over whether to use his last peremptory strike to remove Juror No. 25 or Juror No. 28 before deciding to remove the former.

Therefore, the state concluded, Oswalt waived appellate review because he had not exhausted his peremptory challenge at the time that the court denied his request to strike Juror No. 28 for cause.

In Gary Oswalt v. State of Indiana, 35A02-1208-CR-684, the Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the state. It found that Oswalt had failed to exhaust his peremptory strikes at the time he tried to remove Juror No. 28.  

However, in a footnote, the Court of Appeals stated it might have ruled differently if the defense had not debated how to use the final peremptory challenge. According to the COA, the record demonstrated that when Oswalt asked the court if he had used his last preempt, the court affirmed.

If this had been the extent of the discussion, the COA stated it would agree that Oswalt had exhausted his peremptory strikes. However, the record went on to show defense counsel then debated how to use his final strike, indicating he was aware he had not used all his peremptory challenges.  

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT