Criminal case
Judges: Court should have questioned jurors
July 15, 2009
Jennifer NelsonJudges on the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed as to whether a man's murder conviction should be overturned because
the trial court failed to investigate the impact of threats made against the jury. The majority determined the lack of action
by the trial court resulted in a fundamental error that required reversing the conviction, but that he could be retried.
MoreCOA: alternative murder sentence illegal
July 10, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals ruled a defendant is entitled to re-sentencing on his murder conviction since the trial court
wasn't authorized to sentence him to death and to a term-of-years sentence if the death penalty was overturned.
MoreFirst impression for habitual offender statute
July 7, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide whether a defendant's prior conviction for
conspiracy to deal in cocaine qualified as a conviction for dealing in cocaine under the state's habitual offender statute.
MoreCOA reverses rape conviction in cold case
July 7, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals today affirmed a man's recent conviction for a murder he committed more than 20 years ago,
but it reversed his rape conviction on insufficient evidence. The state failed to file a charge in which it had evidence to
support a conviction of a sexual attack against the victim.
MoreJustices rule on residency-restriction law
July 1, 2009
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court says the three-year-old state law restricting sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of where
children congregate constitutes an unconstitutional form of retroactive punishment. However, the sex offender who won the
appeal has been dead since September 2008.
MoreJustices: Anders withdrawals not allowed
June 26, 2009
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court has rejected a procedure set up by the nation's top court more than four decades ago that allows
attorneys to withdraw from criminal appeals they deem frivolous. Our justices say it's practically and financially more
efficient to simply proceed with an appeal and let that process play out.
MoreCourt reverses conviction over letter
June 23, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA man's convictions of criminal mischief and operating while intoxicated were reversed by the Indiana Court of Appeals
because a letter he wrote while trying to negotiate a plea agreement - which was rejected - shouldn't have been admitted
at his trial.
MorePurse search violated Indiana Constitution
June 22, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA majority of Indiana Court of Appeals judges reversed a woman's conviction of possession of cocaine because the concern
for the safety of police officers doesn't justify the warrantless search of every purse that is stretched in such a way
it appears it could be holding a gun.
MoreCourt affirms student's convictions
June 19, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAfter examining the few Indiana decisions on tumultuous conduct in the context of sufficiency of evidence to support a disorderly
conduct conviction, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed a high school student's conviction for behavior involving the dean
of students. The high court also affirmed the student's battery conviction against the assistant principal.
MoreCourt rules on consecutive enhancements issue
June 17, 2009
Jennifer NelsonConsecutive habitual offender enhancements are improper, whether the enhancements arise from separate trials on unrelated
charges or separate trials on related charges, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled yesterday in two opinions.
MoreFirst impression on residential entry issue
June 15, 2009
Jennifer NelsonSince a man who had permission to be in his ex-girlfriend's garage did not have permission to be in her house, he committed
residential entry as a Class D felony when he kicked in her locked kitchen door to use the phone.
MoreJudges differ on pretrial credit award
June 12, 2009
Jennifer NelsonEach judge on an Indiana Court of Appeals panel weighed in with a separate opinion as to how much pretrial credit time a defendant,
who pleaded guilty to one charge - other charges were dismissed - is entitled to, or if he is entitled to any time at all.
MoreAnimal cruelty an exigent circumstance
June 11, 2009
Jennifer NelsonRuling on the issue for the first time in state courts, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided animal cruelty rises to the level
of exigent circumstances to permit a warrantless search of curtilage. The decision came in a man's appeal of his dog fighting
convictions.
MoreJustices: License plates can't be in rear windows
May 29, 2009
Michael HoskinsJustice Robert Rucker says his four Indiana Supreme Court colleagues have issued a ruling that transforms millions of law-abiding
residents into traffic offenders.
MoreArrest upheld after seatbelt stop
May 22, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a defendant's motion to suppress evidence following a traffic stop for a seatbelt
violation, finding the police officer's inquiry regarding an object in the man's pants didn't violate his constitutional
rights or the Seatbelt Enforcement Act.
MoreJudges disagree on statute's constitutionality
May 20, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an issue with great relevance given today's advances in technology and social networking, the Indiana Court of Appeals
concluded someone who uses a computer to download an electronic image and save it on a CD doesn't "create" a
digitalized image under the child-exploitation statute.
MoreCOA: Just running red light not reckless
May 13, 2009
Jennifer NelsonRuling on the issue for the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that not stopping at an intersection cannot, without
more evidence, constitute criminally reckless conduct and establish a prima facie case.
MoreAdkins applies to drug possession defense
May 7, 2009
Jennifer NelsonWhile the Indiana Court of Appeals unanimously agreed a defendant charged with possessing drugs within 1,000 feet of a school
only has the burden of placing the issue of statutory defense in question where the state's evidence hasn't done so,
the court split in affirming the defendant's possession conviction.
MoreCourt orders mandate for full parole hearing
May 4, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of a prisoner's pro se action for a mandate requiring all five parole
board members to vote on his parole eligibility, ruling the prisoner's case was supported by Indiana statute.
MoreCourt clarifies continuing objection procedure
April 20, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIf a trial court grants a continuing objection, counsel doesn't have to object each time the class of evidence is subsequently
offered, but if the trial court doesn't specifically grant the right to a continuing objection, counsel must object to
the evidence as it is offered in order to preserve the issue on appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreJudge: Courts failing on mental illness
April 17, 2009
Michael HoskinsAn Indiana Court of Appeals judge today lambastes the criminal justice system's efforts in dealing with defendants who
may never be competent to stand trial, inviting more to be done by either the state's lawmakers or highest court.
MoreAppellate court rules statute not unconstitutional
April 13, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe presumption found in Indiana Code Section 9-30-10-16, which governs driving while privileges are suspended, isn't
unconstitutional because it doesn't shift the burden of proof from the state, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreJudges: Vehicle stop by cops reasonable
April 2, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a man's illegal gun possession conviction, ruling the South Bend Police officer
who made the traffic stop had reasonable suspicion the car may be linked to a shooting in an apartment complex.
MoreHigh court addresses Protected Person Statute
March 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAddressing for the first time under the current Rules of Evidence a case regarding a protected person testifying at trial
as well as by videotape or other statement, the Indiana Supreme Court held that if the statements are consistent and both
are otherwise admissible, testimony of a protected person can't be presented both in open court and in a pre-recorded
statement through the Protected Person Statute.
More
Sponsored 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.