sex offenders
Court upholds juvenile placement with DOC
November 12, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals upheld placing a juvenile with the Indiana Department of Correction over his objections that
there was a less restrictive alternative available.
MoreSupreme Court affirms sexually violent predator status
September 29, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA man’s challenge to the finding that he is a sexually violent predator failed because the invited error doctrine precludes
consideration of his claims on appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled today.
MoreAppeals court looks at revised law on sex-offense status
September 1, 2010
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Court of Appeals remanded a case today with instructions to re-examine a case about a man’s disputed classification
as a sexually violent predator.
MoreSCOTUS reverses 7th Circuit on sex offender registration
June 1, 2010
Michael HoskinsThe nation’s highest court reversed the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today on an Indiana case, holding that that a federal
sex offender registry law does not apply to those convicts whose interstate travel happened before the 2006 statute took effect.
MoreSexually violent predator petitions must be refiled
May 24, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe status as a sexually violent predator for two inmates stands for now, but the Indiana Court of Appeals directed the men
to refile their motions to remove that status pursuant to the recently amended statute dealing with this issue.
MoreSex offender may file to take name off registry
May 6, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals determined a convicted sex offender may petition to remove his name from the registry, but he
filed his petition in the wrong court.
MoreMajority upholds violent sexual predator finding
May 5, 2010
Jennifer NelsonAn Indiana Court of Appeals panel disagreed as to whether the failure of a defendant’s counsel to press for the statutory
requirement for a hearing on a sexually violent predator finding was a procedural default that waived the appellate court’s
consideration of the issue.
MoreJudges reverse, reinstate sex-offender conviction
April 29, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a man’s conviction of failing to register as a sex offender based on a lack of
evidence showing the man had a connection to Indiana 90 days after his last registration. The appellate court did reinstate
a vacated conviction for failing to notify law enforcement of his move within 72 hours.
MoreCOA decides sex offender registration plea case
April 16, 2010
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Court of Appeals today declined to ignore a year-old precedent from the state's highest court about sex offender
registration, finding that the ruling still applies to cases where an offender once signed a plea agreement requiring him
to follow lesser registration requirements.
MoreLegislature, courts navigate uncertainty about registry laws
March 3, 2010
Michael HoskinsHoosier lawmakers are revising state law following the confusion created by an Indiana Supreme Court ruling last year, which
involves how convicted sex offenders can be removed from a statewide registry if they believe registration wasn't required
at the time of their conviction.
MoreLawmakers revising sex-offender registry rules
February 26, 2010
Michael HoskinsHoosier lawmakers are revising state law following the confusion created by an Indiana Supreme Court ruling last year relating
to how convicted sex offenders can be removed from a statewide registry if they believe registration wasn't required at
the time of their conviction.
MoreJustices overturn man's registration requirement
January 7, 2010
Jennifer NelsonA Grant Superior judge erred in sentencing a man to register as a sex offender because that requirement wasn't in place
at the time he committed his crime, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled.
MoreCOA rules on re-registration of offenders
December 17, 2009
Jennifer NelsonTwo sex offenders serving or who had completed their 10-year registration period shouldn't have been required to re-register
for another 10-year period after being convicted of any other crime, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.
MoreSCOTUS accepts Indiana offender-registry case
September 30, 2009
Michael HoskinsThe nation's highest court has taken an Indiana case that asks whether someone can be criminally prosecuted under a federal
sex-offense registry law if that defendant's underlying offense and move to another state predated the Sex Offender Registration
and Notification Act's passage.
MoreJustices deny sex offender park ban case
August 21, 2009
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court has declined after nine months to accept a case asking whether registered sex offenders can be banned
from parks and recreational areas.
MoreCOA declines ruling on constitutionality of plan
July 22, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals declined to address the constitutionality of a Department of Correction program for sex offenders
based on the deficient record before it and because the appellate court could decide the case without ruling on the constitutionality
of the program.
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.
MoreCOA: Park ban violates ex post facto laws
June 9, 2009
Jennifer NelsonRelying heavily on a recent Indiana Supreme Court decision regarding sex offenders and ex post facto laws, the Indiana Court
of Appeals split in finding a city ordinance banning a convicted sex offender who no longer has to register with the state
was punitive and unconstitutional as applied to him.
MoreCOA to hear arguments in parks ban case
May 4, 2009
IL StaffThe Indiana Court of Appeals will hear arguments Tuesday in a sex-offender park ban case out of southern Indiana.
MoreJustices issue sex-offender registration rulings
April 30, 2009
Michael HoskinsConvicted sex offenders who've already served their sentences can't be forced to register for life by a newly enacted
statute, but the Indiana Supreme Court is split on whether that lifetime requirement should be imposed on offenders who are
still registering when the law is changed.
MoreSupreme Court grants 2 transfers
April 24, 2009
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Thursday to an ineffective assistance of trial counsel case and a case involving
the testimony at trial of a previous victim of a defendant.
MoreCOA upholds violent offender registration
December 29, 2008
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that the state's sex and violent offender registry doesn't violate the Indiana
Constitution by requiring violent offenders to register for a 10-year period or for life.
MoreCOA: Let a sex offender stipulate
December 23, 2008
Michael HoskinsA convicted sex offender accused of failing to register will get a new trial, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
More7th Circuit rules on sex offender registration
December 22, 2008
Michael HoskinsA reasonable grace period is required before the federal government can enhance a convicted sex offender's punishment for
not registering after a move to a new state, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.
MoreCourt: Rehabilitation evaluation a must
December 17, 2008
Michael HoskinsThe Indiana Supreme Court says that before any juvenile can be placed on the state's sex offender registry, a trial court
must first evaluate whether that minor has been rehabilitated to determine if there's clear and convincing evidence he
or she might re-offend.
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!