Fifth Amendment
Contempt conviction for failure to testify affirmed
May 31, 2013
Dave StaffordA woman who refused to answer questions about another criminal defendant after she was granted immunity was not wrongly convicted
of contempt of court, an appellate panel ruled Friday.
MoreAromatherapy distributors challenge new 'look-alike' synthetic drug law
May 30, 2013
Jennifer NelsonFour companies that sell novelty items, aromatherapy products and other items have filed a lawsuit against Indiana’s
prosecutors, alleging a newly enacted law that makes it illegal to possess or deal “look-alike” synthetic drugs
is unconstitutional.
More'Pleading the Fifth' not the same as admitting to criminal act
May 20, 2013
Marilyn OdendahlA reference made during a trial to “pleading the Fifth” is not an admission of a crime and, therefore, by itself
is not grounds for a mistrial, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.
More7th Circuit grants injunction in company’s suit against providing employees contraceptives
January 31, 2013
Jennifer NelsonFinding a case out of Madison, Ind., to be nearly identical to one out of Southern Illinois challenging the federal mandate
that employers must provide contraceptives to employees despite religious objections, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted
an injunction Wednesday.
MoreJudge sanctions Weinberger for noncooperation with insurer
September 17, 2012
Jennifer NelsonA federal judge in Hammond has entered a default against former ear, nose and throat doctor Mark Weinberger and other defendants
for their noncooperation with his medical malpractice insurance company regarding hundreds of pending malpractice claims.
MoreJudges order new trial based on prosecutor’s comments
September 6, 2012
Jennifer NelsonComments made by a prosecutor during a Harrison County man’s trial for charges stemming from a break-in at a convenience
store improperly suggested that the man chose not to testify so he would not incriminate himself, the Indiana Court of Appeals
ruled.
MoreSponsored 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!