ILNews

Opinions Aug. 1, 2014

August 1, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Constantino Cejas and Nicholas Ceja
12-3896 & 13-1034
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson
Criminal. Affirms brothers’ convictions for conspiring to distribute drugs, possessing and distributing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and possessing a firearm to further their drug activity. Also affirms Constantino’s sentence of 480 months imprisonment. Rules the video taken outside the home where the drug deal occurred was properly authenticated and was not barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Finds there was sufficient evidence to convict Nicholas for possession with intent to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine. Finally, concludes Constantino’s second firearm possession conviction did not violate double jeopardy and congressional intent.

The Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court issued no opinions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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