drugs
High 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.
MoreJustices decide statute, court rule issue
January 15, 2010
Michael HoskinsEven if a court rule is no longer relevant and an underlying state statute has been removed from the books, the Indiana Supreme
Court says it still applies and must be followed until the justices revisit it themselves or say otherwise.
MoreTransfer granted to 'knock and talk' case
November 24, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe state's highest court has agreed to hear a case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals split on whether a police "knock
and talk" investigation violated a man's constitutional rights.
MoreOfficer didn't conduct investigatory stop
November 10, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA trial court didn't abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that a juvenile possessed marijuana because the seizure
of the drug didn't violate the teen's constitutional rights, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.
MoreState didn't prove man used car to keep drug
November 4, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals overturned a conviction of maintaining a common nuisance because the state failed to prove the
defendant used his car to keep marijuana.
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.
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.
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.
MoreCourt split on ineffective trial counsel
September 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonA panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed that an attorney was ineffective because the majority found the attorney
told her client he "should" win the case whereas one judge pointed out in the record the attorney admitted to telling
the client he "would" win.
MoreAmendment doesn't affect sentence
September 1, 2009
Jennifer NelsonEven though the terms of a defendant's plea agreement didn't prevent him from filing a motion to reduce his sentence,
he is ineligible for the reduction under 18 U.S.C. Section 3582(c)(2) because his sentence wasn't affected by an amendment
to the sentencing guidelines, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed today.
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.
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.
MoreCOA: Dog sniff requires reasonable suspicion
July 14, 2009
Jennifer NelsonAnalyzing the issue for the first time, the Indiana Court of Appeals today determined reasonable suspicion is needed to conduct
a drug-detecting dog sniff of a private residence. Even though the state didn't argue the police had reasonable suspicion,
it established the officers relied on the warrant executed after the sniff in good faith.
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: Church not a 'youth program center'
May 21, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a man's Class A felony conviction of possession of cocaine, finding he wasn't
within 1,000 feet of a "youth program center" because the building is a church running mostly faith-based programs.
It's an issue of first impression for Indiana courts.
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.
MoreCOA: Man's sentence could be increased
April 30, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals determined the recent ruling by the state's highest court regarding upward sentence revisions
was applicable to a defendant's sentence.
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.
MoreText messages must be separately authenticated
March 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn a matter of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals determined text messages are subject to separate authentication
before being admitted into evidence, much like the authentication process that data saved in a computer must undergo before
being admitted.
MoreFirst impression in 'non-suspension' rule case
March 31, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals determined in a case of first impression that the state's 'non-suspension rule' in
Indiana Code depends on the status of the prior criminal conviction at the time of sentencing for a subsequent conviction.
MorePlea puts stop to federal death penalty trial
March 30, 2009
Michael HoskinsThe first-ever federal death penalty trial for the Southern District of Indiana was set to start today, but a plea agreement
means a trial likely won't be happening at all for a man connected to a violent killing spree four years ago.
MoreAppellate court to hear arguments at ISU
March 25, 2009
IL StaffThe Indiana Court of Appeals travels to Terre Haute Thursday to hear arguments in a cocaine conviction case.
MoreCOA affirms ruling in 'unusual' termination case
March 23, 2009
Jennifer NelsonIn an unusual case on appeal in which a mother's parental rights were terminated to only one of her five children during
a termination hearing, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the decision due to the circumstances of the case.
MoreCOA: State must prove violation of statute
February 26, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals addressed for the first time today whether under Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-16(b) a defendant
only has the burden of placing the issue in question where the state's evidence hasn't done so.
MoreCourt upholds sentence-reduction denial
February 12, 2009
Jennifer MehalikEven though a defendant may be eligible for a sentence reduction under new crack cocaine sentencing guidelines, it is up to
the District Court's discretion to grant a reduced sentence, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.
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.