ILNews

Judges focus on juvenile due process in Gingerich murder conspiracy appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Court of Appeals judges on Tuesday focused their questions on whether a 12-year-old waived to adult court in a 2010 murder had due process when his attorneys had just five days to prepare for a waiver hearing in juvenile court in Kosciusko County.

A panel heard oral arguments in Paul Gingerich v. State of Indiana, 43A05-1101-CR-27, in which Paul Gingerich pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder and was sentenced to serve 25 years in prison as an adult. He is believed to be the youngest person in Indiana sentenced as an adult. A 15-year-old co-defendant, Colt Lundy, received the same sentence in the killing of Lundy’s stepfather, Phillip Danner, in Lundy’s home in Cromwell. Lundy has not appealed his conviction.

Presiding Judge John Baker and judges Elaine Brown and James Kirsch grilled deputy attorney general Angela Sanchez about the period of time that Gingerich’s defenders were allowed to prepare for a waiver hearing from juvenile court and the court’s denial of requests for continuances.

“Are you confident this is what other trial judges should be doing?” Kirsch asked Sanchez. She replied that the waiver process in question might not represent “best practices,” but that Gingerich’s attorneys still would bear the burden of proving that even if the judge erred, that Gingerich was prejudiced by the mistake.

Sanchez urged the court to rely on the plea that Gingerich entered with the consent of his parents and his own acknowledgement in writing that he was competent to stand trial. But Baker said that happened in adult court, and he repeatedly steered Sanchez to address what happened in juvenile court, asking if she would defend the waiver. “I’m suggesting to you, you need to do that,” he said.

“If you’re not supposed to be in the room, what happens in that room isn’t legitimate,” he later said.

Kirsch noted the Indiana Supreme Court has held that the determination of waiver from juvenile court requires an investigation that “shall not be a perfunctory proceeding.” Brown noted that Marion County typically grants 90 days for juvenile investigations when waiver to adult court is requested. “Why the rush to justice?” she asked at one point.

Sanchez said the juvenile judge was under no statutory obligation to mandate a competency investigation solely based on Gingerich’s age.

“We don’t know if he was incompetent,” Sanchez said of Gingerich. “There’s no error in failing to order” a competency investigation, she later said.

The judges also said they were troubled by evidence presented in the juvenile hearing by a probation officer who said he knew of no secure juvenile facility that could accept a 12-year-old convicted in a homicide, despite numerous placement options. At the discretion of the Department of Correction, Gingerich currently is housed in the Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility.

Gingerich defense attorney Monica Foster said the trial court was misled on that and other facts and never had evidence of Gingerich’s incompetence to stand trial made available before the waiver hearing. She said his parents likely signed a plea in a legal landscape where they saw no due process, reciting a record replete with denials of requests for continuances and motions to reconsider.

The judges also challenged Foster, who indicated that Gingerich’s slight size should have given the juvenile judge pause to further consider competency.

“With all due respect, height does not prove incompetency,” Baker said. Foster replied that a report was done after the waiver hearing that would have proven incompetency and additional evidence would have been presented if defenders had been allowed to prepare a case.

“I’ve never seen an AG’s office so wed to waiver,” Foster said.

Baker counseled Foster that if Gingerich, now 14, prevailed and the case were remanded for new juvenile proceedings, he again could be waived to adult court, where the original murder charge could be refiled. It carries a potential 65-year prison sentence.

“There’s a chance you might win this battle but lose this war,” Baker said.

“I know that I risk that,” Foster said. But she said she also knew “what the evidence would look like at a fair juvenile hearing.”

After Tuesday’s argument, Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller issued a statement defending Gingerich’s conviction and sentence and asking the court to affirm them.

“The state’s position is that the plea agreement entered by the defendant with the vigorous assistance of two attorneys and his parents should not be disturbed. The trial court and county prosecutor followed Indiana law, and the defendant’s rights were not violated,” Zoeller said.

Read more about the Gingerich case in the Oct. 26 issue of 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT