Criminal case
Improper venue doesn't require acquittal
November 3, 2009
Jennifer NelsonEven though the Hamilton Superior Court erred in concluding it was the proper venue for a felony child solicitation charge,
the error doesn't warrant an acquittal of the conviction, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today. The case was remanded
for retrial in the proper venue of Madison County.
MoreYouTube video prejudiced jury
October 30, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe use of a YouTube video during closing arguments as a demonstrative aid by the state warrants a reversal of a robbery
conviction because it may have prejudiced the jury, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreNo error in sanctions against state
October 28, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA trial court didn't clearly err when it dismissed drunk driving charges against a defendant as sanctions for the state's
discovery violations, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.
MoreCOA reverses dismissal of drug charges
October 21, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA trial court erred when it sua sponte decided to exclude evidence from a warrantless search of a defendant's car and
dismiss the drug charges against him as a result of that search, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreCOA: Destroyed tape doesn't make record silent
October 20, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe premature destruction of a tape of a guilty plea hearing by court staff doesn't render the record silent for purposes
of Boykin, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Monday.
MoreSupreme Court considers MySpace statement
October 15, 2009
Rebecca Berfangerhe Indiana Supreme Court today issued an opinion that affirmed a Kosciusko Circuit jury's conviction of a man who murdered
his girlfriend's 2-year-old daughter and the resulting sentence of life in prison without parole. The opinion also considered
the defendant's novel question: whether statements from his social networking Web site, which were presented to the jury
as evidence of his character, were admissible in court.
MoreJudges disagree on when escape occurs
October 7, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide whether inmates in a jail could be charged with escape if they never left the outer
walls of the facility. The majority affirmed the dismissal of the escape charges against the six inmates, ruling the act was
just a violation of prison rules.
MoreTestimony showed intent in identity deception
October 5, 2009
Jennifer NelsonDuring a trial for identity deception, a court correctly admitted evidence under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) of the defendant's
prior interaction with the victim of his identity theft and previous instances of using the victim's information, the
Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.
MoreCOA splits on cheek-swab requirements
September 30, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA split Indiana Court of Appeals ruled taking a cheek swab for DNA testing requires reasonable suspicion only, not probable
cause, under federal and state constitutions.
MoreJudges dissent on search after 'knock and talk'
September 30, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAn Indiana Court of Appeals judge dissented from his colleagues' view that a police "knock and talk" investigation
didn't violate a man's rights under the Indiana Constitution, fearing the circumstances of the case could lead to
a general distrust of law enforcement.
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.
MoreCircuit Court vacates drug sentence
September 14, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a man's drug conviction, but vacated his sentence because it wasn't confident
the District Court judge properly sentenced him.
MoreSupreme Court grants 6 transfers
September 14, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court granted six transfers Sept. 11, including a case of first impression involving a suit filed by a
pathological gambler against a riverboat casino.
MoreConsent not defense in battery case
September 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonBecause consent is not a defense to battery when a deadly weapon is used, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a man's
convictions of felony and misdemeanor battery on his girlfriend after branding her with a hot knife and hitting her with a
cord.
MoreCourt erred in denying court-appointed counsel
September 2, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a man's convictions because the trial court failed to adequately ascertain whether
he was indigent for purposes of court-appointed counsel.
MoreJudges disagree on search validity
August 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonOn remand from the Supreme Court of the United States to reconsider under a recent ruling, the Indiana Court of Appeals reaffirmed
the forfeiture of a woman's car following the arrest of her son for driving while suspended. One judge dissented because
she believes the search of the vehicle was unreasonable in light of the recent ruling.
MoreInstant offense considered 'unrelated' per statute
August 28, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe trial court was correct in interpreting the state's habitual offender statute to include an instant conviction as
one of the "unrelated" convictions referred to in the statute, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreJustices: Appeal not available after guilty plea
August 25, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA majority of Indiana Supreme Court justices agreed a man who pleaded guilty couldn't appeal the denial of his pre-trial
motion to suppress. Yet one justice believed the plea agreement should have been honored according to its terms, which included
reserving the right to object to the denial of the motion to suppress.
More7th Circuit affirms possible erroneous sentence
August 18, 2009
Jennifer NelsonBecause a defendant's attorney affirmatively waived any challenge to an Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement - despite the
7th Circuit Court of Appeals advisement that the enhancement may have been an error due to a recent Circuit ruling - the federal
Circuit Court had no choice but to affirm the District Court.
MoreTrial court erred in denying motion to continue
August 17, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA Marion Superior trial court should have granted a woman's motion to continue the day of her bench trial because she
had a constitutional right to present a defense to support her involuntary intoxication argument, the Indiana Court of Appeals
decided today.
MoreNo Brady violation in sex-sting case
August 13, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA defendant failed to show there was a Brady violation in his trial for enticing who he thought was an underage girl
he met on the internet, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreState's policy in court doesn't violate constitution
August 12, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe state's refusal to waive jury trials in one Marion Superior Court doesn't violate the constitutional rights of
the mentally ill defendants who appear in that court, ruled the Indiana Court of Appeals.
MoreCOA: Trial delays not defendant's fault
August 4, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a motion for discharge pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(C) because the court
incorrectly attributed delays to the defendant.
MoreCourt: Murderer not eligible for parole
July 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court ruled that a man serving two life sentences for his 1975 murder convictions isn't eligible to
seek parole under the laws in effect at the time the murders took place, but could seek clemency though the Indiana Parole
Board.
MoreDistrict Court erred in drug sentence
July 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a man's sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine because the District
Court failed to figure out the quantity of the drug reasonably attributable to the defendant.
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!