A trial court's determination to discharge a jury at a defendant's second trial wasn't an abuse of discretion,
the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
At issue in Gary Dennis Jackson v. State of Indiana, No. 39S01-0907-CR-309, was whether the jury
at Gary Dennis Jackson's second trial for battery should have been dismissed and whether Jackson's conviction at his
third trial violated double jeopardy rules. Jackson's first trial ended in a hung jury; the same day the jury was sworn
in for his second trial, a newspaper article ran about the trial with an excerpt from a letter Jackson wrote to the prosecutor
trying his case. The state requested a mistrial because it believed an admonishment to the jury couldn't overcome the
prejudice against the state created by the article. Five jurors admitted to being exposed to the article. The trial court
granted the motion for mistrial.
At Jackson's third trial, he was convicted of Class C felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. The Indiana
Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, finding the trial court abused its discretion in granting the mistrial and the retrial
was barred by double jeopardy.
Citing various United States Supreme Court and Indiana appellate decisions on mistrials, the Supreme Court found the trial
court's decision to grant the mistrial and order a new trial wasn't an abuse of discretion. The justices disagreed
with Jackson that the trial court had to make explicit findings or give explanations as to why it granted the mistrial. The
trial court also wasn't required to admonish the jury or attempt other measures before declaring the mistrial.
"The trial court's decision is bolstered by the fact that the jurors were exposed to the article the same day they
were impaneled and the mistrial was declared the next day. This was before any evidence was introduced, and even before opening
statements," wrote Justice Theodore Boehm.
The justices also affirmed the exclusion of a paramedic's testimony that while he was treating the victim, someone said
that the victim fell and hit his head against the wall. The paramedic's account was hearsay and not admissible under any
exclusions. The high court also found sufficient evidence to support Jackson's conviction.
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
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.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
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!!!
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.
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.