Criminal case
7th Circuit affirms cross burner's convictions
April 7, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence to uphold a Muncie man's convictions stemming from his burning
of a cross in front of the home of a family with biracial children.
MoreCOA lengthens defendant's sentence
March 30, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals revised a defendant's sentence for rape and other convictions, but it may not have been what
the man had in mind when he appealed. In a rare move, the Court of Appeals increased his sentence by 25 years.
MoreCOA: no error in admitting no contest plea
March 25, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA plea of no contest can be admitted under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(8) as a public record proving the fact of a conviction,
the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed today. The appellate court found no error in admitting a defendant's nolo contendere
plea to a Florida murder as proof he was convicted of an offense qualifying him as a serious violent felon.
MoreJustices: Search didn't violate 4th Amendment
March 24, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA warrantless search of a probationer's property that is conducted reasonably and supported by a probation search term
and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, doesn't violate Fourth Amendment rights, the Indiana Supreme Court held
today.
MoreAppellate court upholds murder conviction
March 18, 2010
Jennifer NelsonAlthough the trial court erred in finding a police officer was a skilled witness uniquely qualified to assess a murder victim's
truthfulness, it was a harmless error because his testimony was an admissible lay observation, the Indiana Court of Appeals
concluded today.
More7th Circuit: counsel assistance wasn't ineffective
March 17, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA defendant didn't receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorneys failed to raise the issue of comments made
by his victim's mother during the trial, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
MoreJudges disagree on chemical possession charge
March 12, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA panel of Indiana Court of Appeal judges disagreed as to whether a defendant who stole anhydrous ammonia with the intent
of selling it to a third party in the future to make methamphetamine, but who never actually sold the chemical, could be charged
with possession with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.
MoreHigh court rules on prisoners issues
March 11, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court handed down two opinions Wednesday in which the high court expressly adopted the "prison mailbox
rule" and determined a majority of the Indiana Parole Board constitutes the full parole board when making final decisions.
MoreDefendant must prove inability to pay
March 11, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe defendant bears the burden of proving that he or she wasn't able to provide support at a probation revocation hearing
for failing to support dependants, the Indiana Court of Appeals held today.
MoreCOA split on impact of jury instruction omission
March 11, 2010
Jennifer NelsonOne Indiana Court of Appeals judge dissented from his colleagues' decision to grant a new trial based on the lack of a
jury instruction on robbery because he didn't think the defendant was prejudiced by the omission.
MorePrior misconduct negates self-defense claim
March 8, 2010
Jennifer NelsonEvidence of a defendant's prior alleged domestic violence incidents against his ex-wife shouldn't have been admitted
to explain the ex-wife's animosity toward him, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today. However, the evidence was
admissible because it was relevant to prove the ex-husband's motive to commit the domestic violence he was charged with
in the instant case.
MoreJudges find search of car for gun not justified
March 4, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges reversed the denial of a defendant's motion to suppress evidence of drugs found
in his car during a search, but one judge believed the man's cooperation and respect toward the police officer shouldn't
factor into their decision making.
MoreDecision resolves conflicting appellate rulings
March 3, 2010
Jennifer NelsonAn offense of attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors can be committed when a defendant attempts to transmit prohibited
matter by the Internet to an adult police detective posing as a minor, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
MoreCOA: Consent prevented constitutional violations
March 1, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of two defendants' motion to suppress evidence even though it wasn't
reasonable under the Indiana Constitution because one of the men gave his consent to search the bag which held drugs.
MoreJudges find stop violated Fourth Amendment
February 26, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a defendant's stop by police and subsequent search of a wheelbarrow he was pushing
- which led to convictions of burglary and theft - violated the man's Fourth Amendment rights. The Circuit Court ordered
the defendant's petition for habeas corpus be granted.
MoreHigh court defines 'briefly'
February 23, 2010
Jennifer NelsonIn two cases involving a statutory defense to possession or dealing of drugs within 1,000 feet of a school, the Indiana Supreme
Court defined the term "briefly" and ruled on whether the defendants were briefly near schools when they committed
their crimes.
MoreJudges split on endangerment issue
February 19, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals found the state proved a defendant had driven drunk, but the judges disagreed as to whether the
state showed the man had endangered others with his driving.
MoreProof of service is state's burden
February 18, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed an invasion of privacy conviction today because the state didn't prove the defendant
knew he was the subject of an active protective order. The appellate court also concluded that notice of a protective order
should come from the state.
MoreState didn't prove man was drunk when driving
February 11, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a defendant's conviction of driving while intoxicated because the state failed to
prove the man was intoxicated when he drove his moped.
MoreMajority affirms conviction despite no witnesses
February 9, 2010
Jennifer NelsonAn appellate judge dissented from the majority's decision to uphold a woman's conviction of operating a car after
her driving privileges had been forfeited for life, finding that confirming her conviction would break from precedent.
MoreJudges reverse theft conviction
February 9, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a defendant's conviction of theft because the trial court failed to instruct the
jury on conversion as a lesser-included offense of theft.
MoreAppeals court split on parol evidence issue
February 1, 2010
Jennifer NelsonJudges on the Indiana Court of Appeals were split on whether a boss's oral promise to a future employee regarding a severance
package would be barred from consideration by the parol evidence rule.
MoreCOA: lawyer-client privilege protects information
January 28, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA defendant's belief that his right to seek exculpatory evidence trumps the attorney-client privilege is incorrect, the
Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
More
Sponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.
Forcing a defendant to wear a stun belt, in court or otherwise, is a violation of american principles! It is also unconstitutional!
So, if I save $100.00 cash per week, from my $500.00 per week paycheck, for 50 years, at which time, I will have saved $260,000.00, the government can raid my home and take my money, just by saying it is drug money! Shouldn't the government, have some kind of evidence of drugs, rather, than just saying we are the government and we will take anything you own, anytime we choose? Tyranny is upon us! If you don't know your rights, you don't have any!