Criminal case

Mom's promoting prostitution sentence stands

December 30, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the 17-year sentence for a woman convicted of prostituting her daughter, finding her sentence was appropriate and that an even longer sentence could be justified.
More

COA upholds violent offender registration

December 29, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The 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.
More

COA: Let a sex offender stipulate

December 23, 2008
Michael Hoskins
A convicted sex offender accused of failing to register will get a new trial, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.
More

7th Circuit rules on sex offender registrationRestricted Content

December 22, 2008
Michael Hoskins
A 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.
More

COA: Warrant didn't need to be admitted

December 22, 2008
Rebecca Berfanger
In a case of first impression involving whether an active arrest warrant must be admitted into evidence when the defendant has not challenged the warrant's validity, the Court of Appeals has affirmed an appellant-defendant's conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana that an officer discovered during a routine traffic stop.
More

Men took substantial steps to commit crime

December 18, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the same issue in two separate Indiana cases of men chatting on the Internet with people they believed to be teen girls: whether there was evidence the men had taken "substantial steps" toward committing the crimes of enticing a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity.
More

Judges disagree on public intox conviction

December 5, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a woman's conviction of public intoxication, but the judge dissenting in the case believed the majority reweighed the credibility of the witnesses and their testimony to reach their decision.
More

Man can't collaterally attack sentence again

December 4, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has again denied a man's attempt to have his drug conviction overturned or sentence reduced because he had used the one 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 motion he was allowed and he can't challenge his sentence again under the same section.
More

7th Circuit cautions about propensity inferenceRestricted Content

November 20, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed a man's drug convictions with intent to distribute, but questioned how a previous drug conviction showed the man had intent or absence of mistake in the instant case.
More

Court orders re-trial after jury instruction error

November 13, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals has ordered a re-trial for a man convicted of attempted murder after ruling today the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on accomplice liability.
More

COA affirms sexually violent predator findings

October 28, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the finding that two defendants are sexually violent predators, ruling the state had produced sufficient evidence to support the determinations under the versions of the sexually violent predator statute used by the trial courts in each case.
More

COA revises child molesting sentence

October 23, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a man's convictions of child molesting, but reduced his sentence because he can't be considered among the worst offenders to justify the maximum sentence.
More

COA: Collateral estoppel not applicable

October 2, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence because the defendant couldn't prove collateral estoppel precluded the trial court from denying his motion.
More

Convictions don't violate double jeopardy

September 3, 2008
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed today a post-conviction court's denial of a defendant's petition for relief, finding his convictions of burglary and attempted armed robbery didn't violate Indiana's double jeopardy clause.
More

7th Circuit panel opines practical tipsRestricted Content

April 4, 2008
Michael Hoskins
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has some practical advice for criminal law attorneys who go before federal judges: have handy a copy of federal criminal procedure rules, particularly those involving plea discussions at sentencing, and don't be afraid to correct or point out omissions to a judge.
More

7th Circuit rules on multiplicitous convictionsRestricted Content

November 21, 2007
Jennifer Nelson
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals encountered for the first time the issue of whether a single incident of firearm possession can support multiple convictions under United States Code when the defendant is included in more than one class of people who are disqualified under the statute from possessing firearms.
More
Page  << 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 pager
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT