Confrontation Clause
Officer’s inclusion of victim’s statements did not violate Confrontation Clause
February 22, 2013
Marilyn OdendahlThe Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a police officer’s testimony that incorporated statements from the victim
did not violate the defendant’s right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.
MoreClosed-circuit testimony not unconstitutional
March 27, 2012
Jenny MontgomeryThe Indiana Court of Appeals held that a man who repeatedly molested a young girl was not deprived of his right to cross-examine
his accuser when she testified via closed-circuit television.
MoreCOA: Hearsay evidence properly admitted
September 22, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the admission of hearsay evidence of a woman’s testimony to an officer that her
boyfriend hit her because the evidence was admissible under the excited utterance exception.
MoreHigh court clarifies harmless error under Sixth Amendment
September 21, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to a man’s case in order to address the application of harmless error to
Sixth Amendment violations involving confronting those who create laboratory reports.
MoreSupreme Court takes 4 cases
September 21, 2010
IL StaffThe Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to four cases Sept. 17, including one involving translated transcripts presented
to a jury in a drug case.
MoreBooking card exception to hearsay rule
June 30, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA booking card created by law enforcement in the course of a ministerial, nonevaluative booking process is not subject to
the police reports exclusion under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(8), the Indiana Court of Appeals decided today.
MoreAG wants Melendez-Diaz overturned
November 4, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Attorney General's Office is joining several states in co-authoring an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court
of the United States to modify or overturn its decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
MoreCourt split on if lab tech must testify
September 25, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe state's highest court was split in its ruling on whether the failure of a lab technician who processed DNA evidence
to testify at a man's trial violated his Sixth Amendment rights.
MoreSCOTUS: Lab techs must testify
January 1, 2009
Michael HoskinsA decision today from the Supreme Court of the United States will have an immediate impact on Indiana, where state justices
are considering at least two cases about whether lab technicians who've tested evidence in a case must appear on the stand.
MoreCourt hears arguments in confrontation case
October 9, 2008
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case that asks whether the defendant had the right to confront the lab
technician who performed the DNA testing relevant to the case.
MoreSponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Lawyer who emailed nude film clip to harm ex-intern suspended 3 years
-
More than half of Conour’s inventoried assets gone, feds say
-
Indianapolis law firm Stewart & Irwin closing
-
Longest-practicing female attorney in Indiana has no plans to retire
-
Criminal code and expungement bills signed by governor
-
Lawyer who emailed nude film clip to harm ex-intern suspended 3 years
-
Indianapolis law firm Stewart & Irwin closing
-
More than half of Conour’s inventoried assets gone, feds say
-
SCOTUS rules against Indiana farmer in seed patent case
-
Social media sleuths find evidence, but admissibility requires authentication
Court Calendar
-
May 24, 2013 Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Judy Holcomb, Personal Representative of the Estate of Mable Louise Cochran, deceased - 5/24/13
-
May 28, 2013 The Estate of Richard A. Mayer and Spangler, Jennings & Dougherty, P.C., v. Lax, Inc., and David Lasco - 5/28/13
-
June 12, 2013 Northern Assurance Company of America v. Thomson, Inc., et al. - 6/12/13
-
June 18, 2013 State of Indiana v. Robert Owens - 6/18/13
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
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.