ILNews

Opinions Dec. 23, 2010

December 23, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following opinion was posted after IL deadline Wednesday:
Indiana Supreme Court
Gregory L. Galloway v. State of Indiana
33S01-1004-CR-163
Criminal. Reverses trial court’s rejection of the insanity defense. The trial court erred in this case by entering a verdict of guilty but mentally ill when the evidence presented reasonably led only to a conclusion that the defendant was legally insane at the time of the offense. Chief Justice Shepard and Justice Dickson dissent.

Today’s opinions
7th Circuit
USA v. Kevin Dortch
09-3260
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano
Criminal. Affirms statutory maximum of 240 months imprisonment for Dortch, who pled guilty and only appealed his sentence. After robbing a bank that was located inside a drugstore in Munster, he led police on two high-speed chases through the nearby residential neighborhoods. At issue was whether enough evidence was presented regarding an officer’s hospital visit following the car chase to show “serious bodily injury.” However, the 7th Circuit found that any error was harmless in this case and that there was nothing unreliable about the officer’s testimony about his hospital stay, even though the 7th Circuit did write the government could have provided more information.

The Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Tax Court are closed Dec. 23 and 24.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT